boss_ai_fit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal a key behavioral trait: it uses '已缓存职位详情' (cached job details), implying no fresh fetching. But it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no cached jobs exist, or any side effects.

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 main functional description is one compact sentence that front-loads purpose and inputs. However, the bracketed availability suffix contains a duplicated phrase '可用性: 可用性:', which is a minor typographical flaw that slightly reduces polish.

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?

Without an output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the report's key components (match, gaps, keywords). Still, it lacks detail on the exact return format, error conditions (e.g., missing resume or empty candidate pool), and how the limit parameter affects the output—leaving the agent with some uncertainty.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the resume being local and job details being cached, which aids understanding of the underlying data, but it does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter or provide any format/syntax details 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 states a clear verb ('生成'), a specific resource ('逐岗匹配度、能力缺口和关键词命中报告'), and identifies the inputs (local resume + cached job details). This gives a concrete sense of the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools by name.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a candidate wants a per-job match report based on cached job details. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer boundaries based on sibling names.

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