cv_list

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 non-obvious behavior — sort order (newest edit first) and that each item is paired with its target vacancy. It doesn't state whether results are scoped to the caller only or how large the list can get, which would have made it a 5.

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, both front-loaded with the highest-value facts (what it returns, then how to use it). No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does: ordered list of CVs, each annotated with the vacancy it targets. Combined with the annotation for safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no argument semantics left to explain and the description correctly presents the call as argument-free.

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 (list the caller's tailored CVs) plus the ordering (newest edit first) and payload shape (each with the vacancy it was written for). This clearly separates it from cv_get, which retrieves one CV by id.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: discovering the id required by the other cv_* tools, and checking whether a vacancy already has a tailored copy. It implies rather than states the exclusion ('don't call this if you already have the id'), so the routing is clear but not fully enumerated.

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