tool_generate_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states it reads a local profile and outputs two formats, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are required, error behavior if the profile is missing, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a generation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler text. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context, such as prerequisites (profile.yaml must exist), overwrite behavior, or error handling. It covers purpose and parameters adequately but leaves key operational details unspecified.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting both parameters: 'template' with allowed values ('modern' or 'minimal') and 'output_name' with the note that no suffix is needed. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though it omits default values that are present in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '排版并编译输出高质量 PDF 与 Word (docx) 双格式简历' (typeset and compile high-quality PDF and Word dual-format resume). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tool_analyze_jd or tool_track_application, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from any alternative, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 by saying it uses the local profile (config/profile.yaml), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives like tool_one_click_tailor, and no prerequisites or exclusions. This is no guidance beyond the basic purpose.

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