boss_ai_fit

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the preconditions (a locally stored résumé and already-cached pool job details) and the customer-facing platform restriction, but says nothing about whether the analysis is read-only or persists a report, whether it consumes AI quota/latency, or how failures surface when cached details are missing.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the data sources and the outputs, followed by a compact availability tag. There is no padding, though the availability tag is somewhat telegraphic and could be clearer to an agent unfamiliar with the roles/platform vocabulary.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: inputs, generated artifacts, and platform availability. It still leaves the agent guessing about the report's shape and whether results are returned inline or persisted, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is producing a report.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented (resume = 简历名称, limit = max pool jobs analyzed). The description adds mild context by stating the analysis is driven by a local résumé across cached pool jobs, which supports the meaning of `resume`, but it adds no detail on the `limit` default behavior or résumé-name resolution beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (生成/generate) and a concrete output set — per-job match degree, capability gaps, and keyword-hit report — together with its data sources (local resume plus cached job details in the candidate pool). This is clearly separable from analytical siblings such as boss_ai_analyze_jd or boss_ai_resume_optimize, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 bracketed availability constraint (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) is genuinely useful routing information that tells an agent when this tool is callable. Beyond that, it only implies usage — pool jobs must already be cached — and never states alternatives or exclusions, e.g. when to choose this over boss_ai_analyze_jd or boss_shortlist_compare.

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