boss_ai_suggest_keywords

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only describes the high-level recommendation behavior; it does not mention side effects, dependence on candidate-pool state, or result format. Since mutating behavior is not indicated, there is no contradiction, but the disclosure is thin.

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 definition is a single compact sentence followed by an availability bracket, so it is not bloated. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor formatting blemish, and the availability data would be cleaner in structured annotations, but information density remains good.

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?

Simple invocation is feasible because the optional limit parameter is documented and the purpose is clear. Missing pieces include the shape of the returned keyword suggestions, whether a populated candidate pool is required, and the effect of varying limit. With no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter (limit) is already described as '候选池职位数上限'. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond connecting the limit to the candidate-pool job analysis. 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?

Description states a specific action and object: it recommends search keyword combinations based on an analysis of candidate-pool jobs ('基于候选池职位分析推荐搜索关键词组合'). This makes the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling AI tools such as boss_ai_suggest or boss_ai_analyze_jd, though the keyword-combination focus is fairly distinctive.

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 bracketed availability text provides a concrete boundary: candidate role, zhilian/zhipin platforms, and no recruiter platforms. This tells the agent when the tool is permitted. It does not, however, say when to choose it over related AI sibling tools or state preconditions like having jobs in the candidate pool, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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