liepin_get_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that only raw JSON from the official Liepin CLI is returned and no copy is saved, but it does not state read-only side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral constraint about raw JSON and no saved copy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target resource, implies the authenticated account, and notes the raw JSON return with no persistence. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit read-only/safety language, which matters because no annotations are present.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the empty schema is consistent with the no-parameter call.

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 a specific verb ('读取') and resource ('简历') scoped to '当前猎聘账号', so an agent can tell this retrieves the authenticated user's resume. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the siblings (job search, expectation update, job apply) are unrelated operations.

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?

Usage is implied by '当前猎聘账号简历' – the tool is for reading the current account's resume. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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