analyze_resume

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

The description discloses key behaviors: it extracts strong claims, cross-references against public repos, and returns a gap report. It also gracefully handles empty GitHub profiles, framing it as a gap. Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full burden and does so well.

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 clear opening sentence, followed by a concise elaboration of the analysis process and edge case handling. No redundant information, and every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (likely defining the gap report), the description provides sufficient context for typical use. It covers edge cases (empty GitHub) and the overall process. Missing details like input format requirements or size limits, but these are minor given the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains both parameters: 'resume_text' as the full text of the resume, and 'username' as the GitHub login. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema property names.

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 purpose: 'Find which resume claims a GitHub profile does and doesn't back up.' It specifies the action (find, cross-reference) and resource (resume claims vs. GitHub profile). This differentiates it from siblings like fetch_github_repos and suggest_projects, which have distinct functions.

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 the tool is used to analyze resume claims against GitHub profiles but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided, relying on implied context.

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