tailor_cv_to_roleRewrites a CV for a specific job spec using NextRole's multi-pass tailor→critic engine. Free anonymous allowance; on exhaustion returns a link to continue on the web app.
| 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 indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds behavioral context: a multi-pass engine, free allowance, and exhaustion flow. No contradictions. It could detail side effects (e.g., no original CV modification) but is sufficient.
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 two sentences, each earning its place: first states the purpose and mechanism, second addresses usage limits. No 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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., the tailored CV text, success status, or error messages). Given the simplicity of inputs, this is a notable omission.
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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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?
The description clearly states the tool rewrites a CV for a job spec using a specific engine, with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'score_cv' and 'ats_lint' by its specific purpose.
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 mentions a free anonymous allowance and a link for continuation, implying a usage policy, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'score_cv' for evaluation) or prerequisites.
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.