投递记录列表

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe read via 列出 and discloses the filter dimensions, but says nothing about pagination, default ordering, result limits, or whether all records are returned by default.

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 zero-waste sentence that front-loads the operation and then the filter options. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation but omits result-shape expectations (ordering, pagination, empty results) that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 50%: keyword is documented in-schema ('按公司/岗位模糊匹配') and status is a self-explanatory enum. The description only restates that both filters exist, and its '公司关键词' wording is actually narrower than the schema's company/position matching.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (投递记录), and the filtering capability makes it clearly a query/list tool rather than a mutation. It does not name any sibling, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous against application_add/update/delete.

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 says filtering by status or keyword is possible but never states when to use this tool versus application_stats (aggregates) or job_archive_list (archived postings). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving routing to inference.

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