Compare local shortlisted candidate positions side-by-side, using tags to filter and focus the analysis. Identify the best match by evaluating key differences in one place.
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=zhilian, 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 of behavioral disclosure. It says the comparison is 'local' and tag-filterable, but does not explain what the comparison produces, what criteria are used, whether the operation is read-only, or what format the result takes. The '本地' qualifier gives a hint about data locality but remains underspecified.
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 main instruction is concise and front-loaded: '本地对比候选池职位，可按标签过滤'. However, the trailing availability block is malformed and redundant, repeating '可用性:' twice and embedding metadata that belongs in annotations rather than the description, which adds clutter.
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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic operation and filtering capability. Still, without annotations or output details, the agent lacks clarity about the comparison result and any behavioral side effects, leaving meaningful 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?
The single optional parameter 'tag' is fully described in the input schema: '只比较包含该标签的本地候选职位'. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description's '可按标签过滤' simply reinforces what the schema already states without adding meaningful new semantics.
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 clear action and resource: '本地对比候选池职位' (locally compare candidate-pool positions). It is meaningfully distinct from sibling tools like boss_shortlist_list, boss_shortlist_add, and boss_shortlist_remove, since none of those claim to compare. However, the phrasing '本地候选池职位' is somewhat ambiguous about whether it refers to shortlist entries or a candidate pool, and there is no title to disambiguate.
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 such as boss_shortlist_list or boss_shortlist_annotate. It only mentions that results can be filtered by tag, but does not explain what scenario justifies choosing compare over the list or other shortlist tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.