tailor_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explains the return format (must-have/frequent term split, resume text, LaTeX), the conditional LaTeX/source handling for .tex resumes, and that the tool does not save (must call save_tailored_resume). This is detailed and transparent beyond what schema or annotations could provide.

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 efficiently structured: a purpose statement, behavioral details, workflow note, and parameter descriptions. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to grasp quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (sibling tools for saving/retrieving, conditional behavior, output schema), the description provides a complete picture: what it produces, how it handles different resume formats, and the expected next step. It fully prepares an agent to invoke the tool and integrate it with the broader workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: job_id is sourced from search_jobs, add_job, or list_saved_jobs; resume is a stored resume name with an empty default. This adds meaningful context (source and default behavior) that the schema lacks.

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 function: building a tailoring brief by matching job requirements against a stored resume. It specifies the verb ('build'), the resource ('tailoring brief'), and the key output components, distinguishing it from related tools like save_tailored_resume and get_tailored_resume.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: before writing a tailored CV, with a next-step instruction to save via save_tailored_resume. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., get_tailored_resume), but the workflow is well-defined and the description of the stored resume handling gives practical usage guidance.

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