cv_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses best-effort PDF generation, the ats_safe_proof, warnings, and out_dir fallback. It does not mention file system side effects or required permissions, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 structured with a bullet list of outputs and a clear model description. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 complexity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers return model details well but misses parameter context for market_id. It adequately explains artifacts and proof, but lacking param semantics reduces completeness.

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 0% (no param descriptions). The description only mentions out_dir's optionality and default. cv_path and market_id are not described, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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?

Description clearly states it parses a CV and renders ATS-safe export artifacts, listing five specific output types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cv_parse (which only parses) and ats_parse_sim (which simulates).

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 generating ATS-safe exports but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it provide 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.