tailor_cv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: returns specific fields (advice, edits, examples), edits are diffs, does not invent experience, free tier limit of 5 edits, and rate limiting (~30/hr per IP). However, it does not explain behavior when both job_text and source+job_id are provided or omitted.

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 relatively concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. It uses line breaks for readability. Including output structure (advice, edits, examples) is helpful but adds length. Some phrases like 'Never invents experience' could be integrated into constraints. Overall, it's efficient with minimal redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input methods, output fields, and constraints. It lacks details on mutual exclusivity of job_text vs source+job_id and error handling, but is fairly complete for a tool with an output schema.

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. It explains that cv_text is 'plain text / markdown', job_text is 'free text', and source+job_id come from a search result. It doesn't specify formats for source (e.g., URL) or clarify mutual exclusivity, but provides sufficient context for understanding parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'ATS-tailor a CV to ONE specific job and return applyable edits (before → after diffs).' It specifies the verb (tailor), resource (CV), and output format (diffs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like match_cv (likely matching without edits) and search_jobs.

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 provides explicit guidance on how to use the tool: 'Give the job either as free text (job_text) OR as a board listing (source + job_id from a search result).' It also notes constraints like 'Never invents experience' and rate limits. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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