List resume files

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: supported file extensions, the default folder path, the ATS_RESUME_DIR override, and the ability to pass a custom directory. It does not disclose sorting or recursion behavior, but it covers the key operational details for a simple listing tool.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and then packs the file types, default location, environment override, and optional parameter into a compact, scannable form. Every part 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 read-only file-listing tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the result is a flat list or includes full paths, but the missing output details are minor for this tool's purpose.

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 documents the 'dir' parameter clearly, but the description adds extra meaning by specifying the default location and the environment variable that changes it. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'configured resume folder' wording.

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's action ('Lists resume files'), the resource (resume files), and the allowed file types (.pdf, .md, .txt). This immediately differentiates it from the sibling tools that scan, extract, parse, or compare 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 makes it clear the tool is for enumeration in a resume folder, and the optional directory parameter gives usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over the processing-focused sibling tools or what should trigger using an alternative.

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