Read document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and specifies the file formats (.pdf/.docx) and location (Resumes folder). It does not detail error handling or return format, but for a simple read tool this is adequate and non-misleading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose, followed by an example and a clear instruction. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 is simple (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects). The description includes purpose, scope, file types, location, and behavioral safety ('Read-only'). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly, though it omits potential error cases, which are not critical for a read operation.

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 input schema already covers the filename parameter fully (100% coverage) with an example. The description adds extra meaning by emphasizing 'Give a file name in the Resumes folder,' reinforcing the location constraint and the expected input format.

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 specifies a unique verb and resource: "Extract and return the plain text of a saved resume / cover letter (.pdf or .docx) from the Resumes folder." This distinguishes it from siblings like read_text_file (generic) and list_documents, and includes an example use case.

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 states when to use it (to read and analyze a resume/cover letter in conversation) and gives a concrete example. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear and the instruction 'Give a file name in the Resumes folder' provides direct usage guidance.

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