get_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result includes full raw content, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any potential error behavior, read-only nature, or other side effects, though for a simple get operation these may be implicitly understood.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It immediately conveys what the tool does and what it returns.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description adequately hints at the return value ('full raw content'). It could be complete, but the lack of any mention of error handling or relationship to other list/get tools leaves a small gap.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for resumeId ('The resume ID'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 tool gets a single resume by ID and returns its full raw content. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resume'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_resumes by emphasizing the full content retrieval.

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 usage (when you have a resume ID and need the full content), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. With sibling tools like list_resumes and export_pdf, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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