get_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior of the `raw` parameter (returning LaTeX source when available), which is useful. However, it does not mention that the `name` parameter selects a particular resume, nor what happens when no resume matches, or any authorization requirements.

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, efficient sentence with a code-formatted parameter reference. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 two-param retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and the `raw` behavior. However, it omits any explanation of the `name` parameter and provides no usage guidance, which makes it marginally adequate.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It explains `raw` well ('returns the original LaTeX source when there is one'), but says nothing about the `name` parameter, leaving its purpose and format entirely undocumented.

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 clear verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('a stored resume'), and adds a distinctive detail about the `raw` flag returning original LaTeX source. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_tailored_resume, the scope is clear enough to infer the tool's role.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many resume-related sibling tools, nor does it explain when the `raw` flag should be used. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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