hunt_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: the URLs are to be opened by the agent in the user's browser, not the tool itself. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though such inference is reasonable.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a helpful clarification about the URLs. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 low complexity (no params), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the agent's expected behavior. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of the playbooks, but the output schema likely fills that gap, so this is not a major deficiency.

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 is empty, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by introducing the concept of the 'active profile', which indicates an implicit state dependency that is not captured in the schema. This helps the agent understand that the tool operates on the currently selected profile.

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 identifies the tool's output: per-source search playbooks (URLs) for the active profile. It conveys the resource and the intended use, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' and does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'source_playbook' tool, though the 'active profile' scoping offers some differentiation.

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 the tool is used to obtain URLs for searching postings, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Sibling tools like 'source_playbook' exist, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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