ashby_get_resume

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already provided. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it fetches the file URL, downloads, and returns text content; supports PDF, DOCX as plain text, and plain text; for unsupported formats returns the download URL. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies output behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third explains the process, fourth lists supported formats, and fifth describes the response. No fluff, front-loaded with key info.

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 no output schema, the description explains the response format (filename, content, or url). It covers supported formats, usage sequence, and parameter handling. It doesn't mention error handling or timeouts, but for this tool with simple params and read-only annotation, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters (file_handle, file_name) already described clearly. The description reinforces the file_handle source and mentions file_name helps determine format, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action (download and read) and resource (candidate's resume or uploaded file). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like ashby_get_candidate by specifying it reads file content, and mentions usage after getting the candidate. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this after ashby_get_candidate to read the actual content of a resume or file.' It also explains the prerequisite (file handle from candidate's fileHandles array). It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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