validate_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 transparency. It mentions validating for 'dangerous constructs' and 'structural issues' but doesn't disclose what happens on failure—does it return errors, suggestions, or modifications? Does it reject or just warn? No output format, no side effects, no granularity of validation level is disclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No padding or filler. Could arguably be slightly more detailed, but the sentence earns its place and is appropriately compact.

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?

For a validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description does too little. The agent doesn't know what happens when validation fails or passes, what the return shape is, or how validation results are reported. Given the tool's complexity (validation implies rich feedback), this is incomplete.

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?

The single parameter latex_code is straightforward and its name is self-explanatory as requiring the LaTeX source to validate. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add format details beyond what the schema name suggests, but for a single obviously-named param, minimal elaboration is needed. The baseline is somewhat lowered by zero coverage, yet the param name makes intent clear.

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 the verb (validate), resource (LaTeX resume source), and purpose (structural issues and dangerous constructs before compilation). It distinguishes from siblings like compile_resume and preview_resume by focusing on pre-compilation validation. Could be more specific about what 'structural' and 'dangerous' mean, but the core action is clear.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't explicitly tell the agent to use this before compile_resume, nor does it describe what makes this preferable to compile_template or other siblings. The phrase 'before compilation' subtly implies ordering with compile_resume, but this is only implied, not explicit.

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