View the pending action queue left by legacy versions to manage outstanding recruitment automation tasks. Resolves compatibility gaps by exposing old queued actions.
招聘自动化兼容接口：查看旧版本遗留的待执行动作队列 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate, recruiter; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=zhilian, zhipin]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.17.0v1.16.0v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only viewing action ('查看') and a legacy compatibility nature, which implies no side effects. Still, it does not disclose response format, whether the queue can be modified, or any operational details beyond availability.
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, followed by bracketed availability metadata. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor typo, but the structure is otherwise efficient and each part contributes useful information.
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, no-annotation view tool, the description covers the core purpose and availability. There is no output schema, and the description does not characterize the expected return data beyond naming the 'pending action queue,' leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will actually receive.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb, '查看' (view), and identifies a specific resource: the pending action queue left over from the old version. The phrase '兼容接口' (compatibility interface) helps distinguish it from current agent-run tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 gives some context: this is a compatibility tool for viewing legacy leftover pending actions, and it includes availability constraints for roles and platforms. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.