boss_ai_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose two important traits — output is priority-ordered and the resume is left unmodified (non-destructive) — but says nothing about prerequisites, permissions, or whether a saved resume name is required versus raw text.

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 carrying the purpose and the key non-mutation constraint. The availability tag is slightly redundant (duplicated '可用性: 可用性:') but overall the text is tight.

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 advisory tool with full schema coverage, the description conveys purpose, input basis (target JD) and non-mutation adequately. Only the guidance relative to sibling AI tools and any prerequisite for the resume input are missing.

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 'resume' and 'jd_text' are already documented. The description adds no format or linkage detail beyond the schema's own field descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource: produces prioritized resume improvement suggestions based on a target job. The parenthetical '(does not modify resume)' usefully distinguishes it from the optimize-style siblings, but it does not differentiate from near-neighbors like boss_ai_fit or boss_ai_suggest_keywords.

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?

Usage is only implied: it works against a target JD and returns advice rather than changing the resume. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the many boss_ai_* siblings is given.

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