boss_hr_request_resume

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral load. It usefully discloses role and platform gating, which is the kind of auth/permission context the rubric credits. However, it says nothing about side effects (whether a message is sent into the candidate's chat), whether the request can be repeated or withdrawn, or what happens if the candidate never shares.

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 compact and places the action at the front, with constraints in one bracketed clause. The shorthand 'candidate_platforms=-' is opaque and takes a moment to decode, which slightly reduces clarity, but there is no filler text.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool, but it has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what a call returns. It does not say whether the tool returns a request status or an error, or how the sharing result is later retrieved (via boss_hr_accept_resume or boss_hr_resume). That leaves an important gap for an agent that runs a multi-step workflow.

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?

There is only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100%: friend_id is documented as '候选人会话 friend_id'. The description adds no additional semantics about which identifier to obtain or how to source it. A baseline of 3 is the correct result when the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'request candidate to share attachment resume' in recruiter mode, which is clear and unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as boss_hr_accept_resume, boss_hr_download_resume, or boss_hr_resume, so it falls 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 block states the tool is only usable with roles=recruiter on recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter, which is real when-to-use guidance. It gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names alternatives (e.g., accept_resume for an already-shared resume), so the guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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