Drafts a cover letter or self-introduction using your resume and target job description, so you can quickly customize applications without sending them.
基于本地简历与目标岗位起草求职信/自我介绍草稿（仅草稿，不发送） [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | 输出语言（zh 中文 / en 英文） | |
| tone | No | 求职信语气 | |
| job_id | No | 从缓存读取职位描述的 job_id（与 jd_text 二选一） | |
| resume | Yes | 简历名称 | |
| jd_text | No | 目标职位描述文本 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.17.0v1.16.0v1.15.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioural burden. It usefully discloses that this is draft-only and never sends, plus audience/platform availability (roles=candidate, zhipin). It does not describe output format, generation quality, or reversibility, so the coverage is partial.
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 purpose is front-loaded in a single effective clause, with the non-sending caveat immediately following. The only flaw is the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix in the availability tag, a minor redundancy.
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 5-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the draft-only constraint adequately. It omits any hint about the output shape or how the resume/jd inputs are combined, leaving it merely sufficient rather than complete.
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 the five parameters (including lang and tone enums, and the job_id/jd_text 二选一 relationship) are already fully documented. The description adds the resume/target-position framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.
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 (起草/draft) and resource (求职信/自我介绍) plus the input basis (local resume + target position). It is distinguishable from siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool. Clear but without active sibling differentiation.
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?
'仅草稿，不发送' clarifies the boundary of the action, and the availability tag scopes it to candidate roles on zhipin. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like boss_ai_reply or boss_ai_resume_optimize; usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.