Compare locally shortlisted candidate jobs by tag to surface suitable matches for a hiring role.
本地对比候选池职位，可按标签过滤 [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 behavioral burden. It mentions local operation and platform availability, but does not clarify whether the comparison is read-only, what it returns, or how comparison results are structured.
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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core operation first and the optional filter second. The availability bracket is terse but adds useful constraints without unnecessary 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 simple one-optional-parameter tool, the description gives enough information to invoke it. However, with no annotations or output schema, it remains unclear what the comparison actually evaluates or returns.
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 optional tag parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates tag filtering but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or meaning beyond the schema.
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 and resource: locally compare candidate-pool positions, with optional tag filtering. It is distinguishable from sibling shortlist tools such as list/add/annotate/remove, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative.
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?
It implies usage for comparing local candidate-pool records and mentions tag filtering plus availability constraints. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of boss_shortlist_list or other shortlist-related tools, nor does it state exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.