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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and contents but does not mention that it is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or possible side effects. It adds no information beyond the basic purpose, leaving the safety profile ambiguous for a tool that likely reads data.

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 that front-loads the main action and contents, which is concise. However, it includes an availability note (roles/platforms) that is arguably not part of the tool's functional description, adding slight noise. Still, it is brief and effective overall.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description communicates its function adequately. However, it lacks any mention of the return format or what happens if the resume is not found. Given the minimal complexity, this is acceptable but not exceptional—an agent might benefit from knowing whether the output is structured or free-form.

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 schema describes the only parameter 'name' as '简历名称' (resume name), and the description says '指定简历' (specified resume), which aligns with the parameter. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond implying it identifies the resume. It doesn't clarify format, how to obtain the name, or any constraints, so it stays at baseline.

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 action: '查看指定简历的完整内容' (view complete content of a specified resume) and lists the sections included (basic info, education, work experience, skills, projects). It specifies the resource (resume) and the verb (view), making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like boss_resume_list or boss_hr_resume, which also deal with resumes, so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes an availability note about roles and platforms, which is not about tool selection. There are no exclusions or conditions stated, so the agent receives no help in deciding between this and similar resume-related tools.

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