Resume Generator MCP Server

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 lists items, implying a read-only operation, but does not address potential behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, error handling, or whether it recursively lists subdirectories. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from usage context.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output format, which are important for a listing tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at return values, which it does not.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain path formatting or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 ('List all folders and files') and target resource ('generated-resumes directory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'create_folder' or 'generate_resume', which serve different purposes (creation vs. listing).

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 includes a purpose clause ('to help with organization'), which implies a general context but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use scenarios or specific prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage decisions largely to inference.

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