score_cvThe free first read: scores a CV against a job spec using NextRole's critic engine — overall match, per-dimension scores, strengths, gaps, and the single top priority to fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_spec | Yes | The target job description. | |
| cv_markdown | Yes | The CV in Markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context about the 'critic engine' and the specific output components (strengths, gaps, top priority). However, it does not disclose potential limitations like usage quotas or error handling beyond the schema constraints.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('The free first read') and clearly summarizes the tool's function and output. No superfluous content.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear overview of input and output components. It could be improved by noting potential errors or usage limits, but overall it is fairly complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates that the tool scores a CV against a job spec but adds no new detail about parameter formats, constraints, or examples.
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 action (scores a CV against a job spec) and specifies the output (overall match, per-dimension scores, strengths, gaps, top priority). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tailor_cv_to_role (tailoring vs scoring) and ats_lint (linting vs scoring).
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 'free first read' implies this is an initial assessment, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tailor_cv_to_role or ats_lint, nor when not to use it. The guidance is weak and mostly implied.
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.