get_resume_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains what the tool returns (self-introduction, name, title, contact info) and the length parameter's effect. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences of purpose followed by a clear parameter definition. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool returns and how to use the length parameter. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format or structure, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter info. It does so excellently by explaining the 'length' parameter with three concrete options ('short', 'medium', 'long') and their meanings. This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare type and default.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get a self-introduction / resume summary, plus name, title, and contact info.' It also provides concrete use cases ('tell me about yourself' or 'give me a summary of this person's background'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and search_skills.

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 description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer... style questions.' This gives clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools, which would be a minor improvement.

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