cv_writing_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does reasonably well: it enumerates the content sections returned (ATS rules, structure, bullet formula, user's tailoring pattern, cover-letter rules) and signals the output is partly user-specific. It does not state format, length, or size of the returned reference.

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, front-loaded with an imperative and a timing cue, then a short list of covered topics plus a guardrail. No filler, and the most actionable instruction comes first.

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-only reference tool with no output schema, the description adequately stands in for return values by listing the sections the agent will receive. It could say slightly more about how large or structured that content is, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema itself is trivially complete.

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 names a specific verb ('Read this') tied to a concrete resource: the CV writing rules covering ATS, structure, bullet formula, tailoring pattern and cover letters. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cv_outline or cv_export_pdf, which generate artifacts rather than supply guidance.

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?

'Read this BEFORE writing or tailoring any CV text' gives explicit timing and a clear triggering condition, and 'Never invent facts' adds a constraint on downstream use. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when this reference is unnecessary, so it stops short of a full when/when-not map.

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