查询岗位库

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that it reads from an approved source and is paginated, but doesn't mention batch limits or any details about what happens with invalid filters. The description does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, one in Chinese and one in English, both conveying similar information. It's efficient, but the duplication is minor. No wasted words.

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?

Complexity is moderate with 5 optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and filters but omits parameter details like status filtering and cursor-based pagination. It's acceptable for a read-only list operation but could be enhanced.

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?

All 5 parameters are in the schema, but coverage is 0% in the description. The description only mentions province/prefecture filters, ignoring limit, cursor, and status. However, the schema provides enums and defaults, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 that the tool reads normalized China jobs with province/prefecture filters, using '分页读取' and 'Lists normalized China jobs'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like collect_jobs and list_sources, but could be more explicit about what it doesn't do (e.g., it doesn't collect or mutate jobs).

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 implies usage for querying job data with optional filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus others like collect_jobs or run_pipeline. No exclusionary guidance is provided.

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