boss_hr_resume

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. '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, but the description never states whether viewing consumes quota or points, whether the candidate is notified, whether a security/permission check can fail, or what the response contains. Only the role/platform gate is disclosed.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the availability constraint front-loaded in brackets, and no filler. The bracketed notation is somewhat cryptic ('-' for candidate_platforms), but the size is appropriate.

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?

For a three-required-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the role/platform gate but omits error conditions, quota/consumption behavior, and how it relates to the request/accept-resume flow. The complete schema partly compensates, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, with all four parameters documented inline (including the encryptJid/uid/security_id mappings), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource, '查看候选人在线简历' (view a candidate's online resume), scoped to '招聘者模式' (recruiter mode). An agent can tell it is a read of resume content rather than a search or list. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as boss_resume_show, boss_hr_request_resume, or boss_hr_download_resume, so the agent still has to guess which resume tool applies.

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 note give a hard precondition (roles=recruiter, recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter), which is genuinely useful gating information. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over boss_resume_show, boss_hr_request_resume, or boss_hr_accept_resume, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the candidate must first be greeted or the resume accepted.

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