Render Resume PDF

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing the fallback semantics: template_fallback is only true when an explicit template_id resolves differently, persisted-choice substitution is surfaced via render_note, and render_note itself means the backend lacked TeX and a LaTeX template was rendered through a Typst one. It also explains the meaning of the `next` key per target type.

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, and every sentence (fallback rules, render_note meaning, response keys) carries distinct information rather than padding. It is dense with nested parentheticals and em-dashes, which makes it slightly harder to scan than an ideally structured definition.

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, so the description must document returns and it does: resolved_template_id/resolved_engine, template_fallback, render_note, pdf_path, conditional copy_path, and the `next` key with per-target behavior. For a non-read-only, idempotent mutation tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the load and does: it maps target_type values to what target_id should contain ('base_resume'->slug, 'application'->application id) and constrains template_id (either engine, must be 'ready', omit for default). The remaining gap is that it doesn't state the exact id format accepted.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Render a PDF") with an immediate scoping of the two target types and their id semantics. It clearly differentiates a base-resume preview from an application render, but never names a sibling tool to contrast against, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains the target_type choice and the template_id constraint ('either engine; must be ready; omit for default'), and notes that a base_resume render is outside the score->tailor->render arc. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives (e.g. get_rendered_pdf for retrieval), leaving usage to inference.

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