Read an existing resume .docx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does a reasonable job: it states that parsing is best-effort by mentioning 'anything unparsed' and describes the return contents. It does not discuss side effects, but the tool's read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Read' and 'extract', and the save parameter is documented in the schema.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the return information follows naturally. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only parse tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned: parsed profile, sections found, and unparsed content. The main gaps are the meaning of 'variant' and explicit routing versus sibling conversion tools, but the core invocation and expected result are clear.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3; path and save are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and leaves 'variant' undocumented, so it does not compensate for that gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('existing Word resume') and clearly names the target output ('profile shape') with its components. It distinguishes from sibling conversion tools by emphasizing structured profile extraction, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 opening 'Call this tool to...' is an explicit usage directive, and the context is clear: use this when you need an existing .docx parsed into the profile shape. It does not list exclusions or compare with resume_to_markdown/htl, but the guidance is not merely implied.

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