ats_lintFree, deterministic ATS check: flags banned symbols, first-person voice, non-standard headers, and unquantified bullets. Returns findings + a pass/fail verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cv_markdown | Yes | The CV in Markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. Description adds specific behavioral details: what it flags (banned symbols, etc.) and output format. No contradiction. Could mention idempotency or statelessness but not necessary.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with key attributes ('Free, deterministic ATS check'), no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and returns. Complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'cv_markdown' described as 'The CV in Markdown.' Description doesn't add beyond this; baseline 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?
Description clearly states the tool performs an ATS lint check on a CV, flagging specific issues (banned symbols, first-person voice, non-standard headers, unquantified bullets) and returning findings with a pass/fail verdict. It distinguishes from siblings like score_cv which likely provides a score rather than a deterministic check.
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?
Description implies usage for quick, deterministic ATS quality check via 'Free, deterministic'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., score_cv) or when not to use 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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: ATS linting, job spec fetching, role searching, CV scoring, and CV tailoring. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (fetch_job_spec, find_roles, score_cv, tailor_cv_to_role), but ats_lint starts with a noun, breaking consistency.
Five tools is a well-scoped set for the job search and CV optimization domain, covering key operations without being too few or excessive.
The tools form a complete workflow: find roles → fetch specs → score CV → tailor CV, with linting as a quality check. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.