job_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't specify what those details include (e.g., job title, status, department), whether it requires authentication, potential error cases (e.g., invalid ID), or rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information, earning its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and high schema coverage, the description is adequate as a basic lookup tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose what details are returned or any behavioral traits like error handling. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for reliable use, though the simplicity mitigates some risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'The job ID (UUID)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only reiterating that it retrieves details 'by its ID'. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or usage notes.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('of a single job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'job_list' and 'job_search' by specifying retrieval of a single job by ID rather than listing or searching multiple jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'application_info' or 'interview_info', which might retrieve related but different entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need details for a specific job ID, which is straightforward for this simple lookup tool. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'job_list' for multiple jobs or 'job_search' for filtered searches, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid job ID. The context is clear but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.