Printable resume HTML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add some transparency by stating it returns an output path and recommending the browser/PDF workflow. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior or other side effects beyond writing; the overwrite semantics live only in the parameter schema, not in the tool description.

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 short and front-loaded, with three sentences that convey purpose, return value, and next step. Minor filler like 'Call this tool' is present, but it is still appropriately concise.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow but leaves important aspects unaddressed: what variant and target_role control, and how overwrite behaves. The schema partially fills this, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 only 60%, and variant and target_role have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate for these gaps; it only indirectly refers to out_path via 'Returns the output path'. It adds no meaning for the undocumented parameters.

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 ('write the resume'), a specific resource ('the resume'), and the output form ('semantic HTML with a print stylesheet'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling resume_to_markdown by calling out the HTML and print-stylesheet behavior.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this when the goal is printable resume HTML, then open in browser and print to PDF. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude Markdown, so it misses the top score but is still clearly actionable.

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