ats_parse_sim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool analyzes file structure and computes results without side effects, but does not explicitly state if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or handles files in a specific way.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Each sentence earns its place: first states what it does, second elaborates on analysis and outputs.

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 has an output schema (context signals), the description need not detail return values. It covers the analysis scope and output types (score, breakages) adequately for a simulation tool with well-documented parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context (applies 'quirks rules' for ats_id, analyzes raw file structure for path) but does not significantly improve parameter understanding 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 purpose: simulating ATS parsing of a CV file. It specifies the analysis (file structure, quirks rules) and outputs (parsability score, breakages with fixes), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ats_redflag_scan or ats_score_report.

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 for simulating ATS parsing but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ats_detect_adversarial for adversarial detection). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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