boss_ai_analyze_jd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the output shape (match score + gap analysis), which substitutes for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or cost. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and result. Minor waste in the duplicated availability label ('可用性: 可用性:'), but overall tight.

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 2-parameter analysis tool, the description explains the operation and its outputs, which is the main gap-filler given no output schema. It still omits usage context and any routing among the many boss_ai_* siblings, leaving the agent to guess which analysis tool to pick.

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%, so both parameters (jd_text, resume) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource in Chinese: analyze a job description and evaluate resume match, returning a match score and gap analysis. This is clear and tells the agent what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling boss_ai_fit, which likely overlaps in intent.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative such as boss_ai_fit or boss_ai_optimize. The bracketed text is a platform-availability gate (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin), not usage guidance.

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