create_resume

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 mentions file creation and template options, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, error handling, or file system impacts. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the 'Returns' statement is somewhat redundant given the output schema. Every sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve efficiency.

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 complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral details like error cases or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on tool behavior would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that filename can include or exclude .tex extension, content is full LaTeX content with a fallback to template, and lists template options. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific action ('Create a new LaTeX resume file') with the resource ('resume file'), distinguishing it from siblings like edit_resume or delete_resume. It specifies the file format (LaTeX) and the output type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage through parameter explanations (e.g., content vs. template), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_resume or compile_resume. It provides some context for parameter choices but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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