read_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reading file contents and returning LaTeX data, but does not specify error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), permissions required, or performance characteristics like rate limits. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. The structure is efficient and waste-free.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return type adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases, given the lack of annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'filename' parameter's semantics: it accepts names with or without the .tex extension. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type definition, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid filename formats.

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 ('Read the contents') and resource ('a LaTeX resume file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_resumes' (which enumerates files) or 'compile_resume' (which processes the file). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 LaTeX content from a resume file, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_resumes' (to find filenames) or 'edit_resume' (to modify content). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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