cv_outline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the output format and the read-then-write workflow with profile_update, implying a safe read. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only, says nothing about which profile (master CV vs. other) is returned, and does not mention permissions or size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the output shape and followed by the actionable editing hint with an inline example. The closing note about the /me live view is mildly tangential but still useful orientation; nothing is bloated.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the one thing that matters most: the exact format of the returned data and how to consume it. The main gap is sibling differentiation from profile_get and clarity on scope (whole profile vs. master CV).

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The path example it does include documents the return value rather than an input, which is a bonus rather than a requirement.

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 resource and return shape: the whole CV/profile rendered as `path: value` lines, with a concrete example path. It is clear what the tool produces, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling profile_get, which an agent could easily assume returns the same profile.

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?

It gives one clear downstream usage rule -- feed the returned paths into profile_update to edit a line -- which is genuinely actionable. It offers no when-to-use versus profile_get / profile_get_master_cv guidance and no exclusions, so selection among profile-reading siblings is left to inference.

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