Analyze Saved Jobs

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

The description states write operations (scraping, writing to KB, Git commit), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which directly contradicts the description. This is a serious inconsistency.

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 concise with a summary line followed by a clear bullet list. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's actions and pipeline steps. Although annotations are contradictory, the description itself is complete for understanding behavior. The presence of an output schema covers return values.

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 single parameter write_to_kb is described in the schema with clear semantics (if True, appends to KB). The description adds context that the pipeline runs regardless, making the parameter's effect well-understood.

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 full pipeline: scraping saved jobs, running EROI analysis, detecting skill gaps, and writing results to KB with Git commit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_saved_jobs by offering a comprehensive analysis.

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 when to use this tool (for full analysis and write-back), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_saved_jobs for simple listing tasks.

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