get_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details including a download URL, but lacks information on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation coverage.

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 of a specific uploaded resume') and includes a key detail ('including download URL'), making it appropriately sized and 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 with behavioral and output uncertainties. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on permissions, response structure, or error cases. However, the schema fully documents inputs, and the purpose is straightforward, making it minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'includeRawTxt'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'id' is for a specific resume, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 uploaded resume'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_resumes' or 'get_generated_resume', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single resume by ID rather than listing or fetching generated versions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a resume ID from 'list_resumes'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_generated_resume' or 'list_resumes', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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