llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully declares the operation as 'Read-only' and specifies it 'does not modify the source resume', plus documents the required auth scope. However, it omits error behavior for malformed input or details about the output format structure.

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?

Five sentences each earn their place: purpose, optional parameter context, safety guarantee, auth requirement, and sibling cross-reference. Information is front-loaded with the core conversion action, followed by modifiers and metadata. No redundant or wasted text.

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 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral statements (read-only, scope), the description is substantial for a conversion utility. The absence of an output schema is moderately mitigated by identifying the target format ('RxResume format'), though explicit mention of return structure would elevate this to 5.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by contextualizing the 'resume' parameter as requiring 'JSON Resume format' and explicitly labeling the 'designBlob' as 'Optional', reinforcing the schema's optionality while connecting it to the Reactive Resume application context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Convert') with clear source and target resources ('JSON Resume object to Reactive Resume (RxResume) format'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'resume-import-rx' by naming it as the reverse operation, making the directional scope 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?

Provides explicit alternative ('For the reverse conversion, use resume-import-rx'), states prerequisites ('Requires scope: resume:read'), and implies when to use this specific direction (exporting to RxResume format). The guidance covers both sibling selection and permission requirements.

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