boss_ai_suggest

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most: the operation is non-mutating and the output is priority-ordered suggestions rather than an edited resume. Role/platform gating is also surfaced. It stops short of describing rate limits, cost, or what the suggestion payload looks like.

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 compact sentence plus a bracketed availability tag, with the core purpose and the non-mutation guarantee front-loaded. The availability metadata is dense but earns its place as the only usage constraint given.

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 two-parameter, read-only advisory tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, result ordering, non-mutation, and audience gating. Only the shape of the returned suggestions is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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%, with both 'resume' and 'jd_text' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's '基于目标职位' only confirms that jd_text drives the analysis and adds no format or linkage detail beyond that.

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 specific verb and resource ('给出简历改进建议' – produce resume improvement suggestions) scoped to a target position, and explicitly negates mutation ('不修改简历'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling optimize tools (boss_ai_optimize, boss_ai_resume_optimize). An agent can route on this without opening any schema.

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 availability tag ('roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-') gives explicit eligibility conditions, and the 'does not modify resume' clause signals when to prefer this over an optimizing sibling. It does not, however, name those siblings directly or state prerequisites such as needing a saved resume or a JD first.

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