job_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden — and it explicitly labels the tool 'Read-only', which is the key safety fact for an agent. It also discloses the shape of what comes back (counts, states, severity-filtered items), though it says nothing about freshness or scope of the snapshot.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the contents, then the safety flag. No filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must convey what the agent gets back, and it does by listing the four content areas. Minor gap: no mention of how current the snapshot is or whether it covers all jobs or one.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments by describing a fixed, whole-engagement view.

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 states a concrete resource ('one-screen status of the engagement') and enumerates its contents: node counts by class, gate states, HIGH-severity items, open decisions. That distinguishes it from get_node (single node) and read_doc, though overlap with open_items and gate_check is left unaddressed.

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?

Calling it a 'one-screen status' implies it is a first-look summary, but the description never says when to prefer it over open_items or gate_check, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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