company_jobs

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose whether this tool mutates state, what side effects 'advance' might have, or what happens to jobs. It is unclear if it reads, writes, or both, and no error or edge-case behavior is described.

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 concise sentence without unnecessary words. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity and fails to provide meaningful structure or detail about the tool's operations.

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 description is highly incomplete. It does not explain input/output schemas, return values, operational modes (e.g., list vs. advance), or how parameters work. Given the complex schema and the presence of an output schema, agents would lack essential context to use this tool correctly.

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 schema has zero description coverage for all seven parameters (now, engine, operation, entity_ref, project_id, bundle_json, payload_json). The description does not explain any of these parameters, their expected values, or how they relate to the tool's purpose.

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 says 'Inspect or advance jobs through its scoped lifecycle and verified receipts,' but it is vague about what kind of jobs, what 'advance' means, and what 'verified receipts' refer to. It does not clearly distinguish this tool from many similar sibling tools like company_chaos, company_bring_up, or list_* operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of selection criteria, such as whether this should be used for listing vs. mutating jobs, or how it relates to other company_* tools.

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