boss_hr_resume

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (view resume) without mentioning auth requirements, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from front-loading key info and organizing multiple use cases. Adequate but not exemplary.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not hint at the response structure (e.g., resume fields, success/error formats). For a 'view' tool, output details are critical. The description is incomplete without this context.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema. It does not explain relationships between parameters or usage constraints.

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 the tool views candidate online resumes in recruiter mode, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boss_resume_show (likely for job seekers) by specifying '招聘者模式'. However, it could be more precise about the return data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_resume_show or boss_hr_candidates. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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