Compare local candidate-pool job entries and filter by tag to evaluate shortlisted candidates.
本地对比候选池职位，可按标签过滤 [可用性: 可用性: roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | 只比较包含该标签的本地候选职位 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.19.1v1.18.0v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions local comparison and tag filtering but does not disclose what the comparison output looks like, whether it requires a prior shortlist fetch, or any rate limits. The availability string adds no behavioral context.
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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the bracketed availability string is noise and the content is too sparse to be truly useful.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a cryptic description, an agent lacks essential context to invoke this tool correctly – such as what the comparison returns, what 'candidate pool' refers to, or how 'local' affects behavior. The availability string does not compensate.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'tag' parameter, which fully explains its meaning. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 '本地对比候选池职位，可按标签过滤' (locally compare candidate pool jobs, can filter by tag) is circular – it essentially restates the tool name 'boss_shortlist_compare' without explaining what the comparison does or returns. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like boss_shortlist_list or boss_shortlist_annotate beyond the vague notion of comparison.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_shortlist_list or boss_detail. The availability line is metadata, not usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.