linkedin_generate_resume

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

The description adds strong behavioral guarantees beyond the annotations: 'Every line comes from real profile data — nothing is invented' and the 'gaps field lists what could not be sourced.' This discloses data authenticity and output caveats that annotations don't cover. The potential file-writing side effect is left to the schema's save parameter, so not fully transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, using two sentences to convey the core action, optional tailoring, authenticity guarantee, and actionable guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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 has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is built, the tailoring behavior, data provenance, and how to handle gaps. It omits output format details but those are in the schema, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

All 9 parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters, though it references the output 'gaps' field, which is not a parameter.

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 begins with 'Build a structured resume from the user's actual LinkedIn profile' — a specific action on a clear resource. It also notes optional tailoring to a specific job, which distinguishes this from sibling tools like linkedin_list_resumes or linkedin_generate_cover_letter.

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 explains when tailoring is appropriate ('optionally tailored to a specific job') and directs the agent to ask about or rewrite content from the 'gaps' field before sending. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use case is well implied.

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