ats_playbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states the tool’s domain and content types but does not say whether it is read-only, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, or what the response format is. Some read-only nature can be inferred from 'playbook,' but nothing is explicit.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the system examples are useful for the parameter. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, though it omits core usage and behavioral details that would make it more structurally complete.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use it, or what a 'job-page host' value looks like. For an agent to select and invoke it confidently, more context is needed.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'system,' with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by naming example ATS values (greenhouse, ashby, taleo, workday, linkedin, eightfold) and mentioning 'job-page host,' which clarifies expected input. However, it does not specify exact accepted values, formatting, or how to identify a job-page host.

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 names content categories—quirks, shared rules, and JavaScript helpers—and lists applicable systems, so an agent can infer the tool returns ATS-related playbook data. However, it lacks a specific verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_versions, show_version, or application_answers. Purpose is therefore vague but not tautological.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage by naming content types, but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent must guess when ats_playbook is preferable to sibling tools.

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