generate_bullet_points

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses behavioral rules (empty bullets with skip_project_entry=true for negligible contributions, prohibition on certain verbs), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose the return format beyond mentioning bullets and skip_project_entry, and an output schema exists which presumably documents the return structure. Decent but not exhaustive behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the essential purpose in the opening sentence. The usage section is well-structured with clear headers and bullet points. Every sentence earns its place with actionable information, no filler or 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 tool sits in a complex multi-step pipeline with rich input (nested analysis object) and an output schema. The description covers the pipeline position, the decision logic for verb selection, and edge cases (negligible contributions). Given the output schema exists and handles return-value documentation, the description is reasonably complete. Minor gaps: no guidance on style_reference behavior or how resume_style affects output.

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 carries the compensation burden. The description explains the 'analysis' parameter's internal fields (contribution_level, absolute_contribution_signal), which adds real meaning. However, resume_style and style_reference are entirely undocumented—resume_style has a default 'concise' but no explanation of options, and style_reference's purpose is unspecified. Partial compensation for a 3-param 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'generate 2-3 resume-style bullet points based on analysis results'. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing the pipeline position (after analyze_repo_for_resume, before merge_into_resume), though the core purpose itself is clear enough that sibling differentiation is somewhat light on the actual generation semantics.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: states exactly when to call (after analyze_repo_for_resume succeeds, before merge_into_resume), and provides a decision tree on verb intensity based on analysis.contribution_level, with specific breakdowns for minor contributions (negligible/modest/substantial) and explicit prohibitions ('still forbidden to use 主导/独立完成'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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