draft_cv_pdf

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions automatic generation and no format prompts but omits side effects like file saving, permission requirements, or what happens to existing files.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value.

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 complex tool with deep nested objects and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., file path), prerequisites, or how 'tailored' is achieved.

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 coverage is 50% (only fileName and outputPath have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional context for userProfile or jobRequirements, relying solely on the schema structure. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool drafts a tailored CV in PDF format for a specific job, emphasizing it doesn't ask for format preferences. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_cv_pdf or generate_and_save_cv_pdf.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many similar sibling tools (e.g., generate_cv_pdf, generate_cv_html), the lack of usage context forces the AI to guess.

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