preview_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does disclose the compile action and what outputs are produced (metadata), which is adequate. However, it doesn't mention whether compilation is ephemeral, whether any files are persisted, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool that performs compilation, this is moderate coverage.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the three key metadata outputs. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information for the agent. It adequately covers purpose and return values but could benefit from stating side effects (does compile persist anything?), whether the compiled PDF is available for download, and how errors are surfaced for invalid latex_code. It's usable but not thorough for an unstructured tool.

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. The description adds context that latex_code is the input to compile and engine selects the compilation toolchain. However, it doesn't explain the effect of choosing xelatex vs pdflatex on resulting metadata, or any constraints on latex_code beyond the schema's minLength. The description name-checks the workflow but doesn't add depth beyond what's inferable from parameter names.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource ('Compile a resume') and specifies the exact output metadata it returns (page count, PDF size, compile duration). It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like compile_resume and export_tex by focusing on preview metadata rather than producing a file artifact, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies this is for getting preview metadata (page count, size, duration) rather than producing the actual resume, which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or what the alternatives (compile_template, export_tex) are for, leaving the choice among siblings to inference.

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