import_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that data becomes the 'master resume pool' but does not specify whether this overwrites or appends existing data, nor does it mention error handling, permissions, or destructive potential. This lack of detail is a significant gap for an import 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?

The description is concise and well-structured, using an Args and Returns section to organize information. Every sentence adds value, but the lack of behavioral details slightly undermines efficiency. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The description covers the core operation and return summary, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure. However, it omits crucial contextual details like whether import is additive or destructive, and any prerequisites or error states, making it incomplete for confident use.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by specifying that file_path must be an absolute path and listing allowed extensions (.tex, .pdf, .docx). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title, though it could clarify path requirements further (e.g., OS-specific formats).

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 clearly states the tool imports resume data from specific file types (PDF, DOCX, LaTeX) and extracts structured data. It lists the categories extracted and explains the imported data serves as the master pool for generate_resume, distinguishing it from siblings that generate or retrieve resumes.

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 provides context that imported data becomes the master pool used by generate_resume, implying this tool should be used before generating resumes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_resume_data for modifications, leaving some ambiguity.

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