Bespree Resumes

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds actionable retry behavior: reuse the same idempotency key on retries. It also adds a data-provenance rule (no invented employers/dates/achievements) that annotations cannot convey. It stops short of describing auth, limits, or the response.

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?

Four short imperative sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a constraint, then the retry rule last. No filler, though the idempotency sentence could be folded together with the rest without loss.

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?

For a high-complexity, 7-required-parameter creation tool with a deeply nested content schema, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps: no guidance on documentType or pageSize, no structure expectations for content.basics/sections, and no indication of what a successful save returns. The anti-fabrication rule and locale/template advice are useful but insufficient.

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% across 7 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It conceptually names only three of them (contentLocale via 'content language', templateId via 'template', idempotencyKey via 'idempotency key') and gives no enum values, no format rules, and nothing about title, pageSize, documentType, or the large nested content object.

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?

Specifies a concrete verb+resource (save a new structured resume) and scopes the input to user-supplied or user-approved facts, which cleanly separates it from update_resume and create_resume_copy. It never names those siblings, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

Gives real operating guidance ('ask for missing facts', 'do not invent employers, dates or achievements', 'choose an explicit content language and template') that constrains how to call it. It does not state when to prefer this over update_resume or create_resume_copy, nor any preconditions such as fetching template/locale options first.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: that Bespree only saves/renders supplied content and does not generate wording, which sets an expectation about the limits being reported.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability statement front-loaded and the clarifying constraint second. No padding, though the second sentence is somewhat tangential to invocation.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only, closed-world tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is essentially complete. It could hint at what the capability list contains, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing about arguments needs explaining.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the resume operations and limits permitted by this connection.' This is clearly a discovery/meta tool, and among CRUD-oriented siblings like create_resume and list_resumes its purpose reads as distinct, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with.

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 phrase 'permitted by this connection' implies this should be consulted to learn what the connection allows, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no trigger condition, and no alternative tool named. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes the locale-independence caveat, useful context, but adds nothing about pagination, ordering, or return shape.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the locale clarification second. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

For a single-parameter, non-destructive list tool with an enumerated locale and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it implies the return is template IDs and clarifies the locale scope. Minor gaps remain in how the returned IDs relate to create_resume or export_resume.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does add real meaning: contentLocale refers to resume content language, not the conversation or site language. That disambiguates the single parameter beyond the raw enum values, though no return-format or locale-selection examples are given.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (template IDs) and scopes it to the requested resume content language. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_resumes by the 'templates' resource, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 tells the agent that contentLocale should reflect the resume content language and is independent of the conversation/website language, which implicitly guides parameter selection. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as list_resumes or when templates are needed at all.

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