Read an existing resume .docx

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that nothing is saved unless save is true, advises reviewing before saving, and states that legacy formats are refused. It does not cover potential edge behaviors like missing files or malformed documents, but the key side-effect behavior is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical safety behavior and format limitation. Every sentence adds distinct information.

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 read-focused tool with no output schema, the description explains the destination shape, what is preserved (sections and unplaced content), side effects, and format restrictions. The main omission is the meaning and effect of the variant parameter, which prevents full completeness.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful detail for path (format restrictions, best-effort heading parsing) and save (default false, no save, review first). However, the variant parameter is completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a real gap in parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action (read an existing .docx resume), a concrete target output shape (profile shape with sections found and unplaced), and a constraint (.doc/.rtf refused). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like resume_to_markdown or resume_to_html, which export to different formats.

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 opens with 'Call this tool to read an existing .docx resume into the profile shape,' giving clear context for when it should be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions beyond refusing .doc and .rtf, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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