score_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It accurately describes the tool as returning scores and analysis, implying read-only behavior. It does not mention any side effects or prerequisites, but the nature is evident.

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?

Two sentences contain all essential information: purpose, input format, and return values. No redundant or missing content. Highly efficient.

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?

Given the simple tool nature, the description is complete. It details input requirements, scoring categories, and output components. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently covers what is returned.

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%, but the description adds value by specifying required keys (basics, work, projects, skills) and providing the JSON Resume schema URL, clarifying the input format beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scores a structured resume in JSON Resume format against a specific rubric. It lists the exact categories returned, distinguishing it from the sibling tool for freeform resumes.

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?

Description implies usage for structured JSON resumes, and the sibling name suggests an alternative for freeform. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling or provide when-not conditions.

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