generate_cv_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers comprehensively. It details the step-by-step internal process (headless browser, localStorage injection, export to PDF) and notably includes the privacy statement 'data never leaves this machine.' This is high-value transparency beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by a numbered list of steps and a template list. It is informative without being verbose. The step list adds behavioral detail, though it could be slightly more concise, but every sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, so the description must explain return values and parameters. It mentions returning a file path but does not reconcile the destination_dir parameter or address output_filename. The conflict between saving to a temp file and the destination_dir parameter is a significant gap. Sibling tools are also not referenced, leaving the context incomplete.

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 only 33%, and the description fails to compensate. It mentions the CV JSON and optional template name, but does not clarify destination_dir or output_filename. The step 'saves the PDF to a temp file' conflicts with the destination_dir parameter, adding confusion. The template list is helpful, but it does not address the semantic gaps.

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 generates a pixel-perfect PDF of a CV/resume, specifying the verb (generate), resource (PDF), and the app URL. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_cv_json and extract_resume_data, which handle JSON export or data extraction.

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 usage context: use this when a PDF of a CV is needed. It specifies the input (structured CV JSON) and optional template, but does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but the lack of explicit alternative guidance keeps it from a 5.

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