get_generated_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves details and a download URL, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get details') and includes a key detail ('download URL') without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It mentions 'details' and a 'download URL' but doesn't explain what other details are included, the response format, or potential errors. For a read operation with one parameter, it should provide more context about the output and usage scenarios.

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%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'The generated resume ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a specific AI-generated resume including the download URL', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_resume' (likely for user-uploaded resumes) and 'list_generated_resumes' (listing multiple). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a generated resume ID from 'generate_resume_for_job'), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'get_resume' or 'list_generated_resumes'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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