build_resume

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes that static gates run and returns lint_ok/verify_ok and findings, but doesn't elaborate on failure modes or what happens with invalid fragments. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Reasonably concise with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence and a bullet list for parameters. Could be slightly more structured, but no wasteful sentences.

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?

Covers all 6 input parameters and mentions return values (lint_ok/verify_ok and findings). Notes that rendering is separate. Missing some context on static gates and error handling, but overall sufficient for a complex tool with output schema.

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%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter in detail, including constraints like valid role_keys and bullet formats. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds a tailored one-page resume from verified fragments and runs static gates. Distinguishes from siblings like render_resume by noting that the 1-page render is separate.

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?

Implicitly mentions that render_resume handles the 1-page render separately, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus verify_resume or other siblings. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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