read_cv

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the load. It states the action ('return') but does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. Since it is a simple retrieval, the omission is acceptable, but it lacks extra contextual 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 extremely concise, using two sentences with no redundant wording. The primary purpose is stated first, and the usage context is provided immediately after.

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 simplicity (no parameters, straightforward return of CV), the description fully covers what it does and when to use it. No additional information is necessary for the agent to invoke it 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?

The schema has no parameters, meaning all parameters are documented (none). The description adds no parameter information, and the baseline for high coverage is 3. No additional meaning is required.

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 with a specific verb ('return') and resource ('full CV'), making it unambiguous. It also indicates its use for answering background, skills, and experience questions, which adds clarity.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer questions about the person's background, skills, and experience.' This is clear and actionable, even without alternatives to compare.

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