boss_ai_analyze_jd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the core analysis behavior and the outputs (match score and gap analysis), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not state side effects, data handling, or explicit constraints beyond the availability tag, so transparency is incomplete.

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 a single concise sentence with the main purpose front-loaded. The embedded availability metadata is useful, though the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor formatting flaw that prevents a perfect score.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential inputs and explicitly mentions the key outputs. The availability tag adds useful role and platform context. It could be more complete by describing the format or scale of the match score, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the input schema already describes 'jd_text' and 'resume' clearly. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states what the tool does: analyze a job description, evaluate resume fit, and output a match score and gap analysis. It identifies a specific verb, resource, and output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as boss_ai_fit or boss_ai_suggest, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_ai_fit, boss_ai_suggest, or boss_recommend. The embedded availability tag restricts use to candidates on certain platforms, but it does not help an agent decide between sibling tools.

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