boss_resume_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查看' implies a read-only display, and the section list discloses what content is returned, but there is no statement about permissions, whether any side effects occur, or fetch limits. It adds some behavioral context but leaves meaningful gaps for a no-annotation 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource and then enumerates the returned sections. The bracketed availability text is slightly noisy (the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is malformed) but the core description is tight and waste-free.

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?

With no output schema and a single required parameter, the description usefully compensates by listing the returned content sections and the platform/role scope. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears to be missing, though return format details (e.g. pagination) are absent.

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% and the single parameter ('name' = 简历名称/resume name) is fully documented in the schema. The description only re-frames it as 'specified resume' without adding naming conventions, formats, or lookup semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (指定简历/specified resume), and enumerates exactly what the returned content contains (basic info, education, work experience, skills, projects). This distinguishes it from the sibling boss_resume_list (which lists rather than shows one resume), though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'specified resume' – the agent infers this is for viewing one resume vs the list tool – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. The availability tag (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin) is useful scoping context but is not framed as guidance.

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