get_resume_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the data source is public resume.json and that the output is condensed rather than the full resume. This is sufficient behavioral context for a simple read-only retrieval tool; no hidden side effects or access concerns are indicated.

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 concise phrase with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core content type ('Condensed work experience, education, and skills') and identifies the source file efficiently.

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 operation with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the source and the content categories returned. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, which is a minor omission given the low complexity of this tool.

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 and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The high schema coverage makes parameter documentation unnecessary, and the description's reference to the source file adds useful context without needing to address parameters.

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 clearly indicates the tool returns a condensed version of work experience, education, and skills from public resume.json. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves', the resource and scope are specific enough to identify its purpose. It is reasonably distinguishable from the sibling tools, which focus on biographical info, projects, and evidence search.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives such as who_is_yongbo_yu or list_projects. The description implies a general resume-summary use case but does not state exclusions or direct agents toward a preferred tool for specific needs.

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