Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, how results are paginated, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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?

For a simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. With no annotations and missing parameter documentation, it's incomplete for reliable use, though the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 ('content') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention this parameter at all, leaving its purpose and effect completely undocumented. However, with only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't add value but the minimal parameter count reduces severity.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all published jobs on the board'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'list_jobs' or 'list_job_posts', which appear to serve similar listing functions in the same domain.

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 like 'list_jobs' or 'list_job_posts', nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without offering usage direction.

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