boss_ai_resume_optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool only gives suggestions and does not modify the resume, which is the most important behavioral trait for an agent to know. The availability suffix adds role/platform guardrails, though it does not describe output format or AI processing behavior.

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 primary action and key non-modification boundary are front-loaded in a single compact sentence. The trailing availability metadata is useful but contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo, which prevents a perfect structure score.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly self-sufficient: purpose, non-destructive behavior, and availability are covered. However, it does not explain how to choose between job_id and jd_text in practice, what the returned suggestions look like, or that 'resume' is a resume name obtained from another tool.

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; each parameter already has a meaningful description. The overall tool description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond 'based on target position,' and the exclusivity of job_id vs jd_text is already stated in 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 specific verb and resource: optimize resume wording based on a target job. The parenthetical '仅建议，不修改简历' adds a clear boundary that prevents confusion with tools that would rewrite or modify the resume. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similarly named sibling boss_ai_optimize, so it falls short of 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?

The description implies usage when a candidate wants resume wording tailored to a target job, and the availability suffix adds role/platform constraints (candidate only, zhilian/zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-). However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with the many sibling AI tools such as boss_ai_optimize, boss_ai_suggest, or boss_ai_fit.

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