hr_recruiting_pipeline_loop

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 only states that the tool routes through the dispatcher and takes message/inputs, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or what the action does internally. For a mutation-like tool, transparency is lacking.

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 concise with three sentences, including parameter documentation. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Well-structured for quick reading, earning a 4.

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 an output schema but the description does not explain what is returned. Given the complexity of a pipeline loop that dispatches domain actions, the agent needs to know expected outputs, error conditions, or asynchronous behavior. The description is incomplete in providing a full picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but does not provide syntax, format constraints, or examples. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not enough to fully 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?

The description clearly states that the tool runs the hr domain agent action 'recruiting_pipeline_loop' and routes through the dispatcher. It specifies the resource and action, which is distinct from other HR tools like hr_live_recruiting_applications. However, it could be more explicit about what the pipeline loop accomplishes, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains how it works (through the dispatcher) but does not give context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is insufficient for an agent to choose it over siblings.

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