Tailor Resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output format and next tool, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or stores anything, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 two compact clauses with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the return format and downstream handoff.

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 existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the description does note Markdown output. However, for a four-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the missing explanation of target_role/target_company and side effects leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only loosely maps 'candidate's own CV' and 'job' to candidate_cv and job_description, and does not explain target_role or target_company at all.

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 names specific operations: re-ranking CV bullets, listing matched/missing keywords, and flagging bullets needing metrics. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_cover_letter or evaluate_job_fit, though it does not explicitly name or contrast 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?

It gives workflow guidance by stating the output is Markdown and should be fed to export_to_docx, which implies a downstream step. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over evaluate_job_fit, generate_cover_letter, or prepare_job_application, nor does it state any exclusions.

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