compile_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the engines used and what's returned (paths, logs), which is reasonable. However, it doesn't mention whether compilation failures throw errors vs return error logs, handling of missing latex_code, or whether the tool has side effects like writing files to disk (which would be relevant given no read-only annotations exist). The compiler-engine detail is useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Could arguably drop 'using XeLaTeX (default) or pdfLaTeX' redundancy, but it's informative. Efficient and well-structured.

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 3 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description should do more. It covers the engine parameter well but leaves latex_code and filename semantics implicit. It doesn't describe error handling, compilation failure behavior, or how logs are structured. Adequate for a straightforward compile task but has gaps given zero annotations and no output schema.

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 for all three parameters. The description explicitly names the engines (xelatex, pdflatex) matching the schema enum and mentions the default, covering 'engine'. However, 'latex_code' and 'filename' are not explained beyond their names, though they are fairly self-evident. The engine semantic detail adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Compile), resource (LaTeX resume source), and output (PDF via XeLaTeX/pdfLaTeX). It specifies the compiler engines and return values (paths and logs). It distinguishes from siblings like preview_resume, though it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from compile_template.

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?

Description says it returns paths and logs and specifies default engine choice, but gives no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. With siblings like compile_template, preview_resume, and export_tex nearby, explicit guidance on when to use this vs those would be helpful, but it's not misleading.

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