analyze_cv

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses tool reads PDF/DOCX, runs against 5 parsers, and returns findings. Does not mention file size limits, processing duration, or if file is uploaded elsewhere, but is largely transparent about its operation.

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?

Two focused sentences: first defines action and output, second provides usage examples. No unnecessary words. Excellent front-loading of purpose.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return types (per-vendor lint findings, risk score, fixes). Mentions supported file types. Could add error handling details (e.g., missing file), but otherwise complete for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with description for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not add further details beyond schema, but schema itself is sufficient. Baseline 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool analyzes CVs against 5 ATS parsers, returning per-vendor lint findings, risk score, and fixes. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by covering multiple vendors (vs. lint_for_vendor which likely targets one).

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?

Description provides explicit user query triggers ('is my CV ATS-friendly', 'will my resume pass [vendor]', 'why am I not getting interviews') and mentions file path requirement. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of sibling alternatives, but context is clear.

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