Get Resume Health Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the failure mode (error when no report exists yet) and the pointer to run_health_check as the remedy.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter meaning and return shape in two tight sentences. The inline field list is dense but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to enumerate the returned fields and the error case, which is enough to call and interpret the tool. A mention of report freshness/staleness semantics would make it complete.

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 carry the burden and largely does: it explains that `kind` is 'base' or 'application' and `key` is the slug or the application id. Only minor gaps remain (format of the slug/id is not spelled out).

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (most recent stored health report) plus the scope (base resume or application) and the key constraint ('without re-running it'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling run_health_check, which it names.

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?

Clearly frames when to use it: to read an existing report rather than recompute one, and it points at run_health_check as the tool that creates a report when none exists. It stops short of an explicit 'use X when you want a fresh score' rule, but the routing is inferable.

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