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 of disclosing behavior. The description is a noun phrase and does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though the 'get' prefix suggests it is safe. It does not mention any potential errors, rate limits, or other behavioral considerations.

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, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficiently structured and easy to read.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the description is largely complete for understanding what it does and what inputs it requires. It does not specify the output format, but no output schema is provided, and the description's brevity is acceptable for a straightforward retrieval. However, it could benefit from a note about when this tool is appropriate, particularly in relation to sibling resume-related tools.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions that identify them as IDs, but they are terse and do not explain the relationships between account_id, applicant_id, and external_id. The external_id description references get_applicant_resumes, which provides some context, but the need for all three parameters remains unclear. The descriptions cover the basic meaning but lack detail about how the parameters interact.

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 that the tool retrieves the full body of a specific external resume for a candidate. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_applicant_resumes, which likely lists resumes, and the mention of 'external' adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'gets' or 'fetches', though the tool name implies this.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_applicant_resumes. It does not mention that the external_id must come from a prior call to get_applicant_resumes, although the parameter description hints at this. The agent is left to infer the appropriate use case without direct instructions.

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