List resume master structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool returns only structural metadata (keys, array lengths, scalar types) and not full field values, and that 'path' scopes the listing. This sets accurate expectations about output scope, though it doesn't explicitly mention that the operation is read-only or describe error cases.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the parameter note. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple introspection tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter behavior, and relationships to sibling tools. It doesn't specify the exact output format, but that is not critical given the tool's nature and the explicit 'shape' framing.

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% for the single optional 'path' parameter, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description repeats the schema's meaning ('scopes the listing to a sub-section') without adding new syntax or format details. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 shows the structural shape of resume_master.json (keys, array lengths, scalar types) and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling field-access tools by explaining its role in path selection. The verb 'Show' is specific and the resource is named unmistakably.

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 explicitly says the tool exists 'to help pick a path for get_resume_master_field / update_resume_master_field', giving direct context for when to use it. It also notes the optional 'path' scoping, which further clarifies usage. While it doesn't list exclusions, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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