list_cvs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the local-folder source, which implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what output structure to expect, or whether any indexing is triggered. The behavioral surface is minimally transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter-specific guidance. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out the return format: what a CV entry contains and how per-CV scores are structured. It also does not clarify whether 'indexed' implies a one-time indexing step or a pre-existing state. This is enough for a basic call but incomplete for robust agent success.

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 sole parameter job_id is given meaningful semantics: passing it returns per-CV recommendation scores for that job. This goes well beyond the schema's type/nullability by explaining the effect of providing the parameter, which is critical since schema description coverage is 0%.

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 identifies the resource (CVs) and the scope (indexed from the active profile's local folder). The optional job_id behavior is also described, which adds functional clarity. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with `sync_cvs`, leaving slight ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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 implies usage: call to list CVs, and pass job_id to get per-CV recommendation scores. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like `sync_cvs` or `list_applications`, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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