tool_one_click_tailor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a multi-step, side-effecting pipeline. It hints at a write (auto-registering the resume into the tracking board) but says nothing about permissions, files written to disk, cost/latency of the multi-step flow, failure modes, or what '防腐零污染' actually guarantees.

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 pipeline is front-loaded in a single arrow-separated line followed by an Args block, which is well ordered. However, decorative jargon such as '防腐零污染' consumes space without conveying actionable meaning, and the header mixes branding with specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the pipeline stages are enumerated. Still, for a complex mutation-heavy orchestrator with zero annotation coverage, the description omits partial-failure behavior, side effects beyond tracking, and prerequisites, leaving meaningful 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%, yet the description documents all three params and adds real meaning beyond the bare schema: jd_text accepts plain text or a file path, auto_track controls post-generation registration with a stated default, and provider is flagged as an optional LLM selector. Only provider lacks any semantic detail.

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 concrete composite verb chain (JD comparison → project augmentation → STAR reinforcement → dual-format resume → battle report → tracking registration), so an agent knows exactly what the tool delivers. It clearly reads as an orchestration superset of siblings like analyze_jd/generate_resume, but it never names or contrasts with them, so differentiation stays implicit.

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 '一键...全套交付流' framing implies the usage context (one call for the full pipeline), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of the granular sibling tools an agent could choose instead. Guidance is only inferable.

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