export_shortlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is known. The description adds specific behavioral context by stating it never writes files or applies to jobs, which clarifies exactly what side effects are absent. This goes beyond a generic read-only hint, giving the agent confidence about the tool's non-persistent nature.

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: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies boundaries. Every word earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded. No unnecessary detail or repetition of schema or annotations.

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 is simple, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists. The description provides the essential behavioral boundary (no file writes, no job application). The main gap is lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings, but for a simple export tool with self-explanatory parameters, the information is reasonably complete.

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 for missing parameter explanations. It does not mention format or job_ids at all. The schema shows format as an enum and job_ids as an array, but their purpose is only implicitly tied to 'render a shortlist.' This is insufficient compensation for zero schema descriptions, though the parameters are simple enough that some inference is possible.

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 states a clear action ('Render a shortlist for the client') with a resource ('shortlist'). It also differentiates from side-effectful tools by noting it never writes files or applies to jobs, which helps distinguish it from potential sibling operations. However, 'render' is slightly ambiguous (display vs generate), and it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_jobs or rank_jobs.

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 a shortlist needs to be presented to the client, and the phrase 'never writes files or applies to jobs' provides some exclusionary guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention sequencing (e.g., after rank_jobs). The context is present but not fully articulated.

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