analyze_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool analyzes multiple qualitative and quantitative aspects, implying it is a read-only analytical operation. However, it doesn't disclose any side effects, dependencies, or the format of the output, 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 succinct—a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately concise and avoids redundant wording.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the description covers key analysis dimensions but lacks details on output and optional parameter usage. An output schema exists, so return format details are less critical, but the incomplete parameter guidance lowers the score.

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 for parameter meaning. It doesn't elaborate on resume_text format or clarify the role of target_job_title even though it's optional. This is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters.

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 identifies the action (analyzes) and the resource (resume), and lists several specific aspects: structure, completeness, impact metrics, action verbs, and skills. This distinguishes it well from siblings like suggest_improvements and calculate_ats_score, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

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 when a resume analysis is needed, listing key analysis dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use calculate_ats_score for scoring or suggest_improvements for changes.

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