assemble_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: it never authors new facts, employers, dates, or metrics; it returns a draft with provenance and disclaimer; and it forbids adding claims. This provides strong transparency for a read-only composition tool.

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 concise: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted explanation of arguments. Every sentence adds value, there is no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and constraints.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no required, output schema provided), the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameter usage, behavioral constraints, and response contents (provenance, disclaimer). It also includes a rule for consuming agents. The output schema handles the return structure, so description completeness is high.

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%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's role: focus for free-text angle, role_ids/project_ids to pin items, skill_categories to restrict, length for 'full' or 'onepage', format for 'structured' or 'markdown'. This adds meaning beyond names and types, such as indicating focus vs ids are alternatives.

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 assembles a tailored resume draft from approved components, using specific verbs like 'assemble' and 'SELECTS and ORDERS'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are get/list tools for individual elements) by describing its compositional nature. It explicitly states it never authors new facts, adding specificity.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use: for a query like 'backend-leaning', with alternatives like pinning specific items via role_ids/project_ids. It also explains how to restrict skills and choose length/format. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use, though the sibling tools imply that for individual components one should use other tools.

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