Score how well a CV/resume matches a specific job posting. Fast and cheap — returns the original match score and the score after tailoring, plus requirement counts. Use this first to show the user the gap before a full tailor.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cvText | Yes | The full CV/resume as plain text. | |
| jobDescription | Yes | The job posting text. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behavior: returns original match score, score after tailoring, and requirement counts, plus performance traits ('Fast and cheap'). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of scoring and the described return values imply no side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is adequate 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 remarkably concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adding value with return details, performance characteristics, and usage directive. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no filler or redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return values (original score, after-tailoring score, requirement counts). It also provides context for when to use it relative to tailoring. For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, this is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('The full CV/resume as plain text.' and 'The job posting text.'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema already defines the parameters well. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 with a specific verb ('Score') and resource ('CV/resume matches a specific job posting'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool tailor_cv by explicitly positioning it as a pre-tailoring step: 'Use this first to show the user the gap before a full tailor.'
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 usage guidance: 'Use this first to show the user the gap before a full tailor.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (before tailoring) and implies the alternative (tailor_cv) for subsequent tailoring. It also notes the tool is 'Fast and cheap,' helping the agent decide to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are clearly distinct: score_cv is a quick assessment for gap analysis, while tailor_cv performs the actual rewriting and provides deeper output. No overlap in their core actions.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (score_cv, tailor_cv), making the naming predictable and uniform.
With only two tools, the count is borderline thin per the calibration scale. However, for a narrow CV-tailoring domain, the pair may be sufficient, but it feels slightly minimal.
The toolkit covers the full workflow: first score to show the gap, then tailor to improve the CV. No dead ends; the user can complete the intended task entirely.