get_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output format (JSON Resume) and content scope, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it returns the full resume or a subset, or any caching/versioning behavior. For a simple getter with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The format (JSON Resume) is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of content areas. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the format and the content areas. It could mention whether the resume is the user's own vs. a candidate's, but the phrase 'the user's base resume' already implies ownership. The lack of an output schema means the description's content list partially compensates, though an agent might still wonder about exact field names.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description adds value by explaining what the returned data contains, which is the closest analog to parameter semantics for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for 0 params is appropriate.

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: retrieving the user's base resume in JSON Resume format, and enumerates the content areas (work history, education, skills, projects, contact info). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which all concern applications, dashboard stats, or analytics.

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 implies the tool is for fetching the user's own base resume, which is distinct from the application/analytics-focused siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals (0 params, no siblings with similar names) make the usage context clear enough.

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