analyze_cv_job_match

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose read-only behavior, which it does via 'without modifying it.' It also mentions scoring and suggestion generation. However, it does not describe output format, potential failures, or any security/privacy aspects related to sending CV data.

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 a single sentence that is direct and packs essential information (purpose, non-modifying behavior, output type) without filler. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it mentions scoring and suggestions but not their structure or format. It also does not address potential prerequisites (e.g., job description extraction) or edge cases, making it adequate but incomplete for a tool with no output schema.

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% with each parameter described clearly, so the description adds little beyond confirming the analysis outcome. The description does not provide additional detail on parameter formats, constraints, or interdependencies that are not already in the schema.

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 ('Analyzes') with a clear resource ('CV') and target ('job description'), and explicitly states it does not modify anything. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_cv, which would alter the CV.

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 implies usage context: it is for analysis only, contrasting with modification. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, though the 'without modifying it' phrase provides clear differentiation.

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