boss_resume_show

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('查看') and the returned content sections, plus the role/platform restriction, but says nothing about what happens when the named resume does not exist, permission failures, or whether output is truncated.

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 clause names the action, the resource, and the returned sections, followed by a compact availability tag. There is no filler; the only weakness is that the bracketed metadata reads as machine annotation rather than prose.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned sections effectively substitutes for return-value documentation, and the availability tag covers access constraints. Only the absence of failure/edge-case behavior keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents that 'name' is 简历名称. The description adds only the word '指定简历', implying the name selects a single existing resume, without clarifying whether it is an exact match, a title, or a path.

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 ('查看') and resource ('指定简历'), and it enumerates exactly what is returned: 基本信息、教育、工作经历、技能、项目. This makes it clearly the detail-view counterpart to boss_resume_list, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 availability bracket is a genuine when-to-use signal: it is only valid for roles=candidate on candidate_platforms=zhipin, and explicitly unavailable to recruiters (recruiter_platforms=-). However, there is no routing guidance among alternatives such as boss_resume_list or boss_hr_resume, so an agent must infer that this is the full-content fetch.

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