Generate Cover Letter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (generate a cover letter) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects (e.g., saving anything), what the output looks like, or any constraints such as length or format beyond 'concise'. The description provides minimal behavioral information beyond the tool's basic purpose.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Generate'), the object ('cover letter'), and the key constraint ('grounded in the tailored resume'). There is zero waste; every word contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's core function.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter ('job') with no schema description, no annotations, and no guidance on its structure or required fields. While the output schema exists, the description does not explain how to construct the input or what the return value will be. The description lacks critical context for an agent to call the tool correctly, especially given the workflow context with siblings like tailor_resume and save_application_snapshot.

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 by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'tailored_resume_text' indirectly ('grounded in the tailored resume') but does not define what 'job' should contain, what its structure is, or how it is used. The 'job' parameter is an open-ended object with no guidance, leaving the agent to guess what fields are required. The description adds only marginal clarity for one parameter and none for the other.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('concise cover letter'), and clearly ties it to the tailored resume. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tailor_resume (which generates a resume, not a letter) and search_jobs (which searches jobs). The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 phrase 'grounded in the tailored resume' implicitly indicates that a tailored resume must exist first, suggesting a workflow dependency on a tool like tailor_resume. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the resume. The usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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