export_tex

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing to an output directory but doesn't state whether an existing file gets overwritten, what happens if the directory doesn't exist, whether the file is committed/persisted in the workspace, or what side effects occur. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single clear, efficient sentence with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded. It's concise but arguably under-specifies given the 0% parameter coverage and absent annotations.

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 a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide more context. It doesn't clarify file naming behavior, overwrite semantics, directory existence handling, or whether exports are visible/retrievable afterward. For a tool with two params and no structured supports, this is insufficiently 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 compensate. However, the description mentions none of the two parameters. 'latex_code' is implied by 'LaTeX resume source,' but 'filename' is entirely undocumented — its default behavior, constraints, or how it relates to the output directory is unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond what a reader might guess.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Save LaTeX resume source as a .tex file') with a specific destination ('the configured output directory'). While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings, the verb 'save/export' clearly differentiates it from compilation, preview, and validation tools in the context. It's specific but lacks explicit 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like compile_resume or preview_resume. The description doesn't mention whether export requires validation first, whether it works with saved templates, or any prerequisites. No exclusions, alternatives, or contextual cues are provided.

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