parse_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 does disclose success/failure return structures clearly, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe edge cases (invalid PDFs, encrypted files, multilingual text), error scenarios beyond error_code/message/details, or whether the tool is purely local/stateless. Some behavioral transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with headings (什么时候该调用/参数/返回) and front-loads the core purpose. The success/failure return format examples are clearly valuable. Minor redundancy: the return section formatting is somewhat verbose for what could be a compact statement, but overall the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 (the ResumeData structure), so return-value explanation isn't strictly required, though the description does give a helpful failure schema. The tool has only 1 parameter, reducing complexity burden. The description adequately covers workflow position, parameter semantics, and return format — reasonable completeness given the tool's modest complexity, though error-message details are absent.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, and it does explain the single pdf_path parameter as '本地 PDF 的绝对或相对路径'. This adds the absolute-or-relative distinction not in the schema. However, it doesn't clarify constraints like file extension requirements or disk-access permissions, leaving the description only marginally more informative than the schema's bare 'Pdf Path' title.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('解析本地 PDF 简历为结构化 JSON') and enumerates the output fields (姓名/联系方式/教育/工作/项目/技能). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by being the designated first-step parsing tool, while siblings handle repo analysis, merging, and rendering.

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 explicitly states WHEN to use it ('工作流的第一步') and the dependency relationship ('后续的 merge / render 都依赖这里产出的 ResumeData'), making the workflow position and alternatives clear. It specifies the trigger condition of receiving the PDF path.

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