boss_hr_request_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'request candidate share attachment resume' and does not explain side effects, whether a message is sent to the candidate, prerequisites, permission requirements, or what happens after invocation. This is a significant gap for an action-oriented tool.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good. However, it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix and packs availability metadata into the same sentence, making it slightly cluttered and less polished than a tightly written definition.

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 is simple: one required parameter with full schema coverage and no nested objects. The purpose is clear enough for basic invocation, but there is no output schema and no description of expected return values, confirmation, or error conditions. For such a low-complexity tool this is acceptable, though not fully 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?

The input schema already documents friend_id as '候选人会话 friend_id' with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat it. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('请求候选人分享附件简历' – request candidate share attachment resume) and identifies the mode ('招聘者模式'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as boss_hr_resume or boss_resume_show, so it stops short of a 5.

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 metadata ('roles=recruiter; candidate_platforms=-; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter') and the '招聘者模式' prefix give some context about when the tool is applicable: recruiter mode on the zhipin-recruiter platform. It does not name alternatives or explicitly explain when to request a resume versus viewing one, so usage guidance remains mostly implied.

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