tailor_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the strong non-fabrication invariant ('never adds a skill, employer, metric or certification'), the validation gate, and the failure mode (is_final=false plus listed blocking issues). It omits permissions, whether the result is persisted, and the cost/behavior of the version parameter.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key constraint and failure behavior. No filler or repetition.

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 generation semantics, invariant, and failure return are covered, which offsets the absence of an output schema. However, the nested 'job' object's expected fields and the meaning of 'version' are undocumented, leaving a real gap for an agent that must construct the call.

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% and two parameters exist, one of them a nested object ('job') with no documented shape. The description explains the purpose of neither 'job' nor 'version' (e.g., what the version increments or selects), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a role-specific resume') and precisely defines the mechanism: reordering and selecting from the master profile plus a factual-validation gate. It is distinguishable from show_pipeline/track_application, but it never names the sibling validate_resume even though it performs validation, leaving a small ambiguity an agent must resolve itself.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for producing a tailored resume for a given job. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no guidance on choosing between this and validate_resume or analyse_job even though their scopes overlap.

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