ats_redflag_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists the checks performed, offering transparency about what it scans for, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 consists of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the checks. No redundant information, and it is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but flagged true), the description is fairly complete. It specifies the input requirements and enumerates all checks. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of the output format, but with an output schema, the description suffices.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description of each parameter in the schema is clear. However, the tool description adds no additional information beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 as per guidelines.

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 ('scan') and the resource ('parsed CV for content red flags'), and lists specific checks (passive voice, employment gaps, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ats_detect_adversarial and ats_screener_brief by focusing on red flag detection.

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 after CV parsing by mentioning 'parsed CV' and referencing the redflags.yaml config, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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