pack_prompt

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned payload by name (cv_schema, cv_instructions, letter_instructions, profile, facts), which is valuable given there is no output schema. However, it never states that the call is a read-only fetch with no side effects, nor what happens if the job_id or pack does not exist, leaving an agent unsure whether calling it advances or mutates state.

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, front-loaded sentences that move from purpose to required output format to submission step, with no filler. It loses a point only because references to cv_schema, profile, and facts are dropped in without saying where they come from.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and the shape of the return payload reasonably well. It remains incomplete on preconditions (must a pack be created via pack_create first?), read-only semantics, and error behavior, which an agent would need before calling.

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% for the single job_id parameter, and the description never mentions job_id at all. An agent must guess whether it is a job posting identifier (as in job_get/jobs_list) or a pack identifier (as in pack_get), which is a real ambiguity in this sibling set.

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 concrete deliverable -- the material needed to write a tailored CV and cover letter -- and positions the call as 'step 1 of the pack', which lets an agent place it in the pack_* family alongside pack_submit. It is not a crisp verb+resource statement, since the tool's own action (fetch/prepare a prompt bundle) is only implied, but the resource and its scope are unambiguous.

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 explicit workflow sequencing: call this first, produce the CV as JSON against cv_schema and the letter as text against letter_instructions, then call pack_submit. It also constrains inputs with 'Use only facts from `profile` and `facts`. There is no explicit exclusion against siblings such as pack_get or pack_create, so the agent must infer that a pack already exists.

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