List Base Resumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context beyond that: archiving hides a resume from scoring and pickers without deleting it, and archived entries carry archived_at. It does not mention ordering or pagination of the list.

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 purpose and return fields, then the filtering behavior, then a tight parenthetical defining archiving. Every sentence earns its place; the nested explanation of archiving is slightly dense but still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields including archived_at. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only list ordering/limits are unaddressed, which is minor.

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 coverage is 0% and the single boolean has no description in the schema, so the description must carry it. It does so fully: explains the default (only pickable), exactly what include_archived=true adds, and the extra field those entries carry.

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 and resource (list base resumes) plus the return fields (slug, display name, summary), which makes it clearly distinct from get_base_resume or list_resume_versions. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer alternatives from the names alone.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for the single decision point: default returns only pickable resumes, include_archived=true adds archived ones. Clear usage context, but no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to reach for instead (e.g. get_base_resume for detail).

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