list_resumes

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: listing files, specifying the directory ('resumes directory'), and detailing the return format ('filename, last modified date, and file size'). However, it omits details like pagination, error handling, or file format constraints, which would be useful for a read operation.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second specifies the return values. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse without extraneous details.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation), an output schema exists, and the description covers the purpose, scope, and return format adequately. It lacks some behavioral context like error cases or directory specifics, but for a simple list tool, it is mostly complete and functional.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the zero-parameter case without unnecessary information.

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 ('List all LaTeX resume files'), resource ('in the resumes directory'), and scope ('all'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_templates' (which lists templates) and 'read_resume' (which reads a specific resume), making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 for retrieving resume metadata, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_resume' (for content) or 'list_templates' (for templates). It lacks when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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