t2000_job_open

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: funds are escrowed on-chain immediately, no ASP veto, public title/brief, auto-refund if unclaimed within openHours, and a budget cap. All important side effects and constraints are transparently stated.

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 dense paragraph but is well-structured with key points emphasized (e.g., 'THIS SPENDS FUNDS NOW'). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more concise or broken into bullet points for easier scanning.

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 the tool and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the lifecycle effectively: posting, claiming, and refund. It does not explicitly state the return format, but the behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to understand the consequences of invoking the tool.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description reinforces some of these (e.g., budget escrowed, public nature) but does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Post an OPEN JOB') and the resource ('to the board (buyer side)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like t2000_job_claim (ASP side) and t2000_job_cancel (for refunds). The verb+resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use (buyer posting an open job), what it does (spends funds, no approval step), and important precautions (keep secrets out, confirm with human). It also mentions a fallback (t2000_job_cancel). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other job-related tools like t2000_job_hire, but the context is clear enough.

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