Connect a job source

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'ResumePilot never stores passwords or OTPs' — a security guarantee. It also clarifies that external adapters connect via official login/OAuth in later phases. However, it does not state what happens when 'connect' is invoked (e.g., OAuth flow initiation) or whether it modifies state beyond the connection itself. Still, the security note and phase context provide significant transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and source types, then adds contextual details about phase availability and security. Every word earns its place; no fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers essential context: what sources exist, current availability, and security behavior. It could mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of sources or connection status), but the omission is minor given the 'inspect or list' nature. Overall, it is adequately complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter ('Adapter id to connect (e.g. 'manual'). Omit to list all sources.'). The tool description reinforces this by mentioning 'manual' and the omission behavior, but adds minimal new meaning. Since the schema covers the parameter semantics fully, a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect or connect a job source adapter' and lists specific source types (professional networks, job boards, career pages, APIs, ATS pages). It also distinguishes the current phase (manual source ready) from future phases, which helps an agent understand the scope. This differentiates it from siblings like search_jobs or apply_to_job.

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 context about when to use the tool ('Phase 1 has the `manual` source ready') and notes that real adapters come later, implying current usage is limited to manual source. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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