rescore_posting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the steps (load posting, load rubric, score via LiteLLM, persist result) and error conditions (ValueError for missing posting, ScoringError for LLM failure). This provides good transparency into side effects and behaviors.

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 four sentences front-loaded by the purpose. It efficiently covers purpose, steps, and errors without unnecessary words. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved by combining steps, but it is well-structured.

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 existence of an output schema and single parameter, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main actions and errors, though it could mention idempotency or implications of re-scoring (e.g., overwriting previous score). Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on the posting_id parameter beyond its use. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory from the context. The description could add value by explicitly stating the meaning of posting_id.

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 it re-scores a posting using the configured LLM, with a specific verb (re-score), resource (posting), and method (via LLM). It is distinct from sibling tools like tag_mismatched_score, query_postings, and regenerate_digest.

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 (when needing to rescore a posting) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or contrast with alternative tools. The sibling tools are different in function, but no exclusions are stated.

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