cv_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the data is cached analysis, and the missing_have vs missing_gap split prescribes what to do with each (reframe existing evidence vs ask the candidate) — actionable context an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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 dense sentence enumerating the returned content, followed by a short imperative. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the packed parenthetical makes it heavier to parse than necessary.

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, and the description compensates by naming the key fields returned plus the interpretation each requires. The only gap is not stating the response shape or whether context may be absent when no tailoring exists.

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 100% schema coverage the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance and the warning never to construct one. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: shows the cached fit-analysis context for a tailored CV, and enumerates its contents (verdict, recommendation, dimension comments, requirement split). This clearly separates it from cv_get (CV content) in spirit, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

"Read this before editing" gives a concrete usage trigger tied to the editing workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives (cv_get, cv_tailor) or stating when not to call it, so it's clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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