generate_letter_pdf

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

Discloses use of local Chromium and return of path, but does not mention if files are overwritten, error behavior, or permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden and is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 structured with separate sentences and an Args section. It is informative but could be shortened slightly; however, it effectively communicates key details without significant 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?

Covers input modes, output format, and dependency (Chromium). No output schema, so the return value is explained. Missing error handling and file overwriting behavior, but for a focused tool, it is fairly complete.

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 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter: text (Markdown structure), letter_path (alternative input), output_path (save location). Adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names.

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?

Clearly states it renders a cover letter in Markdown to an A4 PDF, identifying the specific resource (cover letter) and output format. The sibling generate_pdf is more generic, so this tool's focus on cover letters distinguishes it well.

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 guidance on when to use text vs letter_path, and mentions it works without Word. However, it does not explicitly compare to the sibling generate_pdf, which could cause confusion about which to use for general PDF generation.

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