boss_ai_suggest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not modify the resume, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe the output format, whether suggestions are returned as a list, how priority ordering is applied, or any side effects. This is partial disclosure but leaves significant gaps.

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 instruction is one clear sentence. However, the embedded availability string is redundant (repeats '可用性:') and adds noise. Still, the main content is concise and front-loaded, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain the return value. It mentions suggestions are priority-sorted but does not specify the response structure, such as a list of suggestions or any metadata. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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 both parameters (resume and jd_text) are already documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format expectations or relationship between parameters. According to the baseline, with high coverage, a score of 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 tool's function: providing resume improvement suggestions based on a target job description, and explicitly notes it does not modify the resume. This is specific and distinguishes it from modification tools, but it does not name sibling tools like boss_ai_resume_optimize, so differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_ai_resume_optimize or boss_ai_suggest_keywords. The description only notes it doesn't modify resumes, which hints at a read-only advisory role, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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