list_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns job information, application counts, and statuses, which is helpful. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema hints, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return information, and usage scenarios. It's appropriately sized (3 bullet points each for returns and usage) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor room for improvement in tightening phrasing, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context on what the tool does and when to use it. However, for a tool with 4 parameters and pagination behavior, it lacks details on error handling, response format beyond high-level fields, or authentication requirements (session_id is documented in schema but not explained in description). It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'status' values or 'page' defaults in more detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 the tool's purpose: '查看已发布的职位列表及申请统计' (view published job listings and application statistics). It specifies the verb (view/list) and resource (jobs/positions) with scope (published). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_applications' or 'search_candidates', which prevents a perfect score.

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 clear usage contexts in the '可用于' (can be used for) section: understanding recruitment progress, deciding to refresh/close positions, and jumping to candidate search. It gives practical scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives like 'search_candidates' for filtering candidates directly.

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