draft_application

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions that it drafts documents and returns a summary of file locations. It does not disclose whether files are overwritten, if the tool is destructive, or any other behavioral traits like data usage or prerequisites.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose, plus a minimal Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter usage, and return value. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and how to invoke it.

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%, but the description adds essential semantics: explains job_ref format (e.g., '#1', '1', or full URL) and its source (last scan). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 it drafts a resume and cover letter for a specific job. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (export_jobs, scan_jobs), but the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 after scanning jobs (via job_ref from last scan) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like export_jobs or scan_jobs.

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