get_cv_tailoring_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It lists actions: 'Aligns bullets to requirements, incorporates keywords, strengthens achievement language, and identifies gaps.' This provides useful behavioral detail but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. The stated behaviors are sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 single sentence with a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose and then enumerates specific actions. Every part adds value, though the bullet list could be integrated more smoothly. No unnecessary words.

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 has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main transformation actions succinctly. The description is likely sufficient for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add parameter-specific details.

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 mentions 'bullets' and 'requirements', which map to 'current_resume_bullets' and 'job_posting' respectively. However, it does not explicitly define each parameter, their formats, or constraints. The description adds partial meaning but leaves room for ambiguity.

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's purpose: 'Tailor a CV/resume to a medical writing job posting for ATS alignment.' The verb is specific ('Tailor'), the resource is identified ('CV/resume'), and the domain is constrained ('medical writing job posting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other types of prompts.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling prompt tools, but no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The '[PRO]' prefix hints at a professional version but is not explained.

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