boss_ai_suggest_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the analysis source is candidate-pool jobs, but omits return format, whether recommendations are generated live or cached, platform/auth prerequisites beyond the availability tag, and read/write safety profile.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, but the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' and bracketed metadata introduce avoidable noise.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the returned keyword combinations, their count, or their structure, leaving a significant gap for a recommendation 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% and the sole optional parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb phrase ('推荐搜索关键词组合') and scopes it to candidate-pool job analysis, so the basic purpose is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby AI siblings such as boss_ai_suggest or boss_ai_analyze_jd.

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 gives implied context that this is for the candidate role on zhipin rather than recruiter platforms. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance.

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