get_job_custom_fields

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying API call (GET /jobs) which implies a read operation and provides context about Moka's API limitations. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but the behavioral information is adequate.

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 structured with a purpose sentence, an implementation note, and parameter list. It is front-loaded and every part adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No fluff.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its parameters, and the unconventional implementation. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool, though it omits potential limitations or return format hints.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains job_id (job ID) and org_id (organization identifier, defaults to env variable if empty), adding meaning beyond the schema. It also explains the internal mechanism (extraction from GET /jobs).

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 '获取某职位的自定义字段' (get custom fields of a job), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job_detail (full job detail) and get_offer_custom_fields (different resource).

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 explains the implementation reason (no stable independent API) and that it extracts from GET /jobs, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide specific alternatives, though siblings are listed.

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