cv_xyz_scaffold

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'NEVER fabricates metrics — only asks the candidate for real data.' This informs the agent about data integrity. However, it does not mention other behaviors like idempotency or side effects.

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 very concise—only a few sentences—while conveying the core action, output structure, and a critical behavioral rule. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description lists the return components and the key behavior (no fabricated metrics). Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be detailed further. However, it lacks parameter documentation and error handling context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool description does not explain the cv_path parameter beyond its name. It fails to specify the format (file path, URL, content string) or constraints, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 action: 'Decompose every highlight bullet in a CV into an XYZ scaffold.' It lists specific return components and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cv_parse, cv_render, and cv_verify_claims which handle different CV tasks.

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 CV highlight decomposition but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about never fabricating metrics is a usage behavior, not a guideline for tool selection.

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