pandape_web_descargar_cv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses a web session, saves an HTML file locally, and returns a local path. However, it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether the file persists, overwrites, or requires specific authentication state) beyond mentioning 'session', leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action and provide necessary context about the format limitation. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 provides essential information about the return value (local path) and the format limitation, but lacks details such as file naming behavior, exact session requirements, or error handling. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 50% (idMatch is undocumented in the schema), and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not compensate for the missing idMatch documentation, leaving the agent to infer its meaning. The nomeArchivo parameter is documented in the schema, but the description adds no additional value.

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 saves the printable HTML view of a candidate's CV via web session and returns the local path. It specifies the verb ('Guarda'), resource ('vista imprimible del CV'), and differentiates from siblings like pandape_descargar_cv by emphasizing the HTML/PDF distinction.

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 explains the ATS limitation (no PDF binary) and implies this tool is the web-based alternative for obtaining CV content. Though no sibling is explicitly named, the context provides clear reasoning for when to use this tool. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but the coverage is good.

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