boss_ai_optimize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavior: 'not directly writing back to disk' (不直接写回磁盘), signaling a non-destructive preview. However, it does not explain other potential side effects, auth requirements, or what exactly 'outputs optimized structure' means.

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 core description is a single compact clause with a useful parenthetical. However, there is a duplicated '可用性:' token, and the availability bracket adds clutter without clear added value. It is concise but slightly messy, keeping it from a 4.

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 purpose, the non-destructive behavior, and availability constraints. The phrase 'outputs optimized structure' hints at the return shape. Missing details like exact output structure are minor given the low complexity.

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%: both 'resume' and 'jd_text' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 the verb-resource relationship: 'optimize resume based on target job description'. It is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling tool 'boss_ai_resume_optimize', so it misses the sibling-distinction bar for a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or alternative routing guidance is provided. The availability constraint (roles/platforms) is meta-information, not usage context. There is no mention of when to choose this over boss_ai_resume_optimize or other AI resume tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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