Ответы кандидата на типовые вопросы рекрутёров — проверьте здесь, прежде чем писать ему. / Candidate's answers to common recruiter questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Язык: ru или en | |
| candidate | No | Slug кандидата (из search_candidates). В личном режиме не обязательно: отправьте null или не передавайте параметр. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what content is returned and gives no guidance on side effects, default language behavior, candidate resolution, auth needs, or output format.
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 the core purpose and usage hint. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.
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 simple two-optional-parameter lookup, the description conveys the main purpose and when to use it. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not clarify default behavior when lang or candidate are null, or what the returned answers look like.
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 100%, and the schema already documents lang with allowed values and candidate as a slug from search_candidates, including the personal-mode caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond its general purpose, so the baseline applies.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving a candidate's answers to common recruiter questions, and it names the specific resource (candidate FAQ). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_* tools, but the meaning is distinct enough.
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 phrase 'check here before writing to him' gives a concrete trigger for when to call this tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct candidate resource or workflow step: profile, resume, conditions, contacts, FAQ, references, interview, assessment, vacancy matching, and messaging are clearly separated. Even similar get_* tools are differentiated by description, and ask_about_experience is explicitly a targeted query rather than a full document.
Most tools follow a clear imperative get_/send_/manage_/match_/message_ pattern, making the set predictable. The exceptions are 'assessment' and 'recruiter_context', which are noun-only names and break the verb-led convention, though the lowercase snake_case style is consistent throughout.
Thirteen tools is well within the ideal range for a recruiting-focused server. Each tool covers a meaningful step in the candidate engagement workflow, from initial context and profile retrieval to vacancy sending, matching, interviewing, and assessment, with no obvious bloat.
The core candidate lifecycle is well covered: viewing candidate information, contacting them, sending vacancies, matching against job descriptions, proposing interviews, and managing assessments. Minor gaps exist around post-assessment progression, explicit offer/rejection handling, and broader pipeline or status management, but agents can mostly work around these.