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 discloses useful behavior: output is semantic HTML with a print stylesheet, bullets are trimmed to fit max_pages, and the call returns the destination path. It also notes the tool is free, which is relevant given sibling license tools, though it leaves some details like overwrite consequences to 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and output. The 'Free.' sentence is minor filler but not distracting, and every substantive sentence adds useful 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?

The main workflow, output type, and page-trimming behavior are present, and the zero required parameters reduce risk. Still, for a tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description leaves variant and target_role unexplained and does not describe the exact return value beyond 'where it went.'

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?

The description adds meaning to max_pages by explaining that bullets are trimmed to fit the page budget. However, variant and target_role have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the tool description, so with 60% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 verb and resource: 'write the resume as semantic HTML with a print stylesheet' and 'return where it went.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from resume_to_markdown and the absent doc_to_pdf by framing the output as printable HTML.

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 explicitly says to call this tool for the HTML/PDF-print path and tells the agent to print from a browser because 'there is no doc_to_pdf here.' It does not explicitly contrast with resume_to_markdown, but the intended use case is clear.

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