hr_live_recruiting_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, safety profile, authentication requirements, pagination, or rate limits. The description merely says 'list', which implies a read operation but is not explicit.

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 extremely short (3 words), which makes it concise in length but not in content. It is underspecified and omits critical information that an agent needs to use it correctly. Front-loading is not relevant when there is almost no content.

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 has one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably defines the return format, the description should at least explain the parameter and the tool's purpose in context. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the 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 input schema has one parameter 'status' with a default of empty string and no enums or description in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation of what 'status' means, what values are acceptable, or how it affects the results. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Greenhouse jobs'. It distinguishes from siblings like hr_live_recruiting_applications (lists applications) and hr_live_advance_application (advances applications). However, it does not clarify whether 'jobs' refers to job postings or positions, which is a minor 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list jobs vs. list applications or reject applications). The sibling tools are numerous, and the description provides no context for selection.

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