resume_diagnose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the output structure and the access limitation (free once, then membership required), which are important behavioral constraints. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, but the diagnostic action implies no modification.

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 sentences deliver the purpose, input, output, and usage restriction with no filler. Important information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what to pass in, what results to expect, and the access conditions. Nothing critical is missing for an 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?

Schema coverage for the single parameter is 100%, so the schema already defines resumeText as plain resume full text with length limits. The description repeats this notion without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

Description states a specific action (resume diagnosis), the required input (resume full text), and the returned outputs (overall score, five-dimension scores, strengths, issues, actionable suggestions). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like resume_rewrite and resume_tailor.

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 clearly communicates how to use the tool: feed the full resume text to receive a diagnosis, and notes the free-trial and membership requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as resume_rewrite or resume_tailor.

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