rewrite_resume

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses strict truthfulness guardrails (no invented details), return formats, and access code requirement. Adds behavioral context beyond basic operation.

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?

Two concise sentences. Front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, guardrails, return formats, prerequisite. No extraneous text.

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?

Covers input, output (text/JSON), behavioral constraints, prerequisite (access code), and sibling tool guidance. No output schema, but description explains return formats adequately. Complete for a rewriting tool of moderate complexity.

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 33% (only 'format' documented). Description compensates by explaining the role of 'resume' and 'job_description', and the guardrails applied. Adds meaning beyond schema for undocumented parameters.

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?

Description uses specific verb ('rewrite'), target resource ('resume'), and context ('maximize ATS match score'). Explicitly names sibling tool as alternative for access code retrieval, distinguishing the two.

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?

States when to use (matching resume to job description). Provides prerequisite (ACCESS_CODE) and fallback action (call get_access_info). Does not explicitly state when NOT to use, but sibling tool context implies alternative for access issues.

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