ResumeMD

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool runs 'pure computation, no AI call' and that 'the resume is never stored,' giving the agent essential safety and cost context. It also details what the tool produces, leaving no ambiguity about behavior.

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 long. The first sentence lists the full set of outputs in a compact, structured way, while the second adds usage and safety context. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or fluff.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, output categories, usage timing, and operational details (server-side computation, no storage). It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 already provides a clear description for the single 'markdown' parameter ('The full resume as Markdown text'). The tool description repeats this by saying 'Markdown resume' but does not add deeper semantics such as formatting requirements or edge cases, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 core action: 'Score a Markdown resume 0-100' and enumerates the specific outputs (readability metrics, keyword findings, missing-section checks, recommendations). This distinguishes it from siblings like render_resume_pdf or list_resume_templates, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool: 'Use it to review a draft before handing it to the user, then apply the recommendations.' It provides a clear usage context but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool's nature as a guide with specific content (name line, contact line, sections, etc.) and instructs to follow it exactly. It does not detail the output format, but for a no-parameter reference tool this is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and key content areas. Every clause provides useful information—no filler or repetition.

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 no-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description completely covers what the tool provides, when to use it, and why (so the draft pastes into resumemd.pro for a free PDF). No important information 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by describing what the guide contains, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 provides the ResumeMD Markdown conventions for writing a resume, including a skeleton example. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the drafting guide rather than analysis, templates, or rendering.

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 explicitly says to call this BEFORE drafting a resume and to follow the structure exactly, providing clear usage timing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, but the context strongly implies its role.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: the fixed count of 32 templates, the fact that the same Markdown renders across all templates, and that returned IDs are usable in render_resume_pdf. This goes beyond a simple 'list' statement, though it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or output format.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause earns its place. It includes the count, content, usage guidance, and an important cross-tool tip without any fluff or repetition.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description provides complete context: what it returns (all 32 with descriptions), how to use it (recommend a look), what to do with the IDs (render_resume_pdf), and even a behavioral quirk (consistent Markdown). There are no significant gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter information. It does add cross-tool relevance by mentioning that template IDs feed into render_resume_pdf, which is useful semantic context beyond the empty schema.

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 lists all 32 ResumeMD templates with one-line descriptions, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting template ids are valid input to render_resume_pdf, making its listing purpose distinct from rendering.

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 explicitly says to use this to recommend a look for the user and gives role-based examples, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it only indirectly differentiates from render_resume_pdf and does not explicitly mention alternatives like analyze_resume or get_resume_markdown_guide, or state 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.

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output format (JSON with base64 PDF and suggested filename), instructs to decode base64, and states that the PDF is generated in memory and never stored. This covers the key side effects and user-facing behavior.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: main action with default, return/output handling, and alternative for interactive use. No redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all essential context: input, output format, how to deliver the result, and an alternative tool. It also compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the JSON structure.

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% since both markdown and template have descriptions. The description adds value by noting the default template ('classic') and directing users to list_resume_templates for the full list of 32 ids, which aids parameter selection beyond the schema's enum list.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a Markdown resume to a finished PDF using a ResumeMD template.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly referencing list_resume_templates for template IDs and offering an editor alternative.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it is for PDF rendering, and explicitly waves off interactive editing, template switching, and color choices to resumemd.pro/editor. It also points users to list_resume_templates for all available template ids, indicating the proper way to choose a template.

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