cv_parse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey traits. It implies a read-only operation (parsing a file) but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any side effects. The output structure is mentioned but not behavioral constraints.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and key outputs without unnecessary words.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and is simple with one parameter. The description covers the main outputs (JSON Resume, sections, confidence, warnings) but lacks details on error handling, size limits, or prerequisites.

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 only parameter 'path' has schema coverage 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the supported file formats (PDF/DOCX/MD/TXT), which clarifies the expected input beyond the bare type.

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 it parses CV files (PDF/DOCX/MD/TXT) into a validated JSON Resume with sections, confidence, and warnings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cv_render or cv_verify_claims.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the action without context for selection.

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