job_stories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a positive signal, but the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or whether it returns all job postings or only recent ones. It provides minimal but non-misleading context.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any redundant or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly 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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the source and category, and the schema covers the only parameter. However, it lacks explicit context about how this relates to sibling story-list tools or what 'job postings' precisely entails (e.g., the 'jobs' item type), which would slightly improve completeness.

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 (limit) with full description coverage (100%). The description itself does not mention the limit parameter, but since the schema already documents its meaning and constraints, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 the tool's function: 'Get job postings from Hacker News'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('job postings'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like top_stories, ask_stories, and show_stories. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 by naming the job posting category, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like top_stories or new_stories. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied through the tool name and description.

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