list_interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the data is sourced from email confirmations and that only 'actively tracked' interviews are listed. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which is further supported by the non-mutating tone. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for a list tool this is acceptable. It adds useful context about the data source.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('List job interviews'), and every clause adds value: data source, active tracking, and parameter usage. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the data source, the primary filter semantics, and the tracking scope. It does not describe the return format, but for a simple listing tool this is a minor gap. The parameter schema handles the input details comprehensively, so the description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a usage hint for 'upcoming=true' and mentions filtering by application ID or status, but these repeat the schema's descriptions rather than adding new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies; no extra value beyond the schema is provided.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'List job interviews'. It further specifies that interviews are actively tracked by JobGPT and detected from email confirmations, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_applications or list_outreaches. No ambiguity.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use upcoming=true to get scheduled/rescheduled interviews' and 'Can also filter by application ID or status.' This tells the agent when to use specific parameters. It doesn't exclude alternatives, but there is no competing interview-listing tool among siblings, so the context is sufficient.

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