list_recruiting_comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds that it returns the resolved target ref, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't detail pagination or response structure, though output schema exists.

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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity of five target kinds and the presence of both input and output schemas, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, target resolution, and basic behavior without needing to reiterate schema details.

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% with detailed descriptions for target and limit. The description adds value by explaining the target locator resolves friendly identifiers and that it returns the resolved target ref, providing context not fully captured in schema.

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 it lists comments attached to Recruiting vacancy, candidate, applicant, review, or opinion targets, distinguishing it from generic list_comments. It also mentions resolving friendly identifiers and returning the resolved target ref, adding specificity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_comments or other recruiting list tools. Usage is implied through the context of Recruiting and listed target kinds, but no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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