compile_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 mentions compilation with lualatex and the output directory, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting files, error handling, output file name). For a mutation-like tool, this lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a one-line argument description. It front-loads the main action and wastes no words. 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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic purpose and usage. However, it omits details like prerequisites (resume.tex existence), output file location, and error scenarios. Adequate but could be improved.

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 adds meaning for the 'company' parameter ('optional — omit to compile the base resume') but does not explain 'workspace_dir' at all. Partial coverage, adequate but not complete.

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 'Compile resume.tex using lualatex', specifying the action (compile) and the resource (resume.tex). It distinguishes from sibling tools like read_application_file or save_application_file by its specific compile function. The optional company parameter adds nuance.

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 explains when to use the company parameter ('Compiles in a company directory, or the workspace root if no company is specified'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though no siblings overlap.

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