pipeline_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description correctly implies a read-only aggregation, but it does not detail whether counts include all statuses (including zero counts) or only statuses with existing jobs. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple count tool.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's 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 tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is counted and by what grouping, though it could marginally benefit from noting that it aggregates across all saved jobs.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe, which is appropriate.

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 'Count saved jobs by application status' uses a specific verb ('count') and resource ('saved jobs') with a clear grouping criterion ('application status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_saved_jobs (which lists) and search_jobs (which searches).

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 this tool is for obtaining aggregate counts rather than individual job details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_saved_jobs or update_job_status. No when/when-not guidance is provided.

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