llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses return values ('extracted contact info, work experience...'), size constraints ('~10 MB'), and authentication requirements ('scope: upload:write'). Minor gap: does not clarify persistence behavior or idempotency.

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?

Six sentences, each earning its place: functionality, return values, workflow integration, limitations, auth requirements, and alternative tool. Perfectly front-loaded with no redundancy or waste.

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?

Compensates effectively for missing output schema by detailing return contents, and for missing annotations by specifying scope and limits. Sufficient for the tool's moderate complexity (3 flat parameters), though could clarify whether the upload creates a persistent stored record.

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%, establishing baseline 3. The description reinforces the base64 encoding requirement and file formats but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or semantic relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verbs ('Upload... and parse') with clear resource identification (resume file in PDF/DOCX/TXT) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool resume-parse ('For parsing without the upload step, use resume-parse instead'), making the 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?

Explicitly states workflow position ('first step in a job application workflow before running ats-score or job-hunter-run'), names specific prerequisite scope ('Requires scope: upload:write'), and provides clear alternative selection criteria ('For parsing without the upload step...').

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