yupao_list_resume_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and destructive=false; the description adds that only metadata is returned and that no download/send occurs, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. Return field details are absent but the safety profile is well covered.

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 compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the param hint plus negative scope following directly. No filler.

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 read-only single-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, param meaning, and what is not done. It could mention what metadata fields are returned, but that is a minor gap against annotations that already carry the safety profile.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the param burden and does so: it explains that for_chat=true targets chat attachments, complementing the schema's default of false. One param, one clear semantic addition.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (uploaded resume attachment metadata) with an explicit scope of '本人已上传'. The negative clause clarifies it is not a download/send tool, though no direct sibling is named for differentiation.

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?

Explains that for_chat=true selects chat attachments and explicitly states it does not download or send resumes, giving clear when-to-use context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for downloading or sending, but the scope is unambiguous.

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