ATS 关键词优化

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read/analysis operation whose result is 'embeddable optimization text' rather than a mutation of the resume, and it enumerates the four output artifacts in the absence of an output schema. However, it says nothing about auth needs, whether the resume is pulled from session state, or rate/cost constraints.

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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the delivered artifacts. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing artifact list makes it slightly dense.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description partly compensates by naming the four outputs, which is genuinely helpful. It still leaves gaps for a resume-analysis tool: where the resume comes from, whether anything is persisted, and any failure/permission behavior are unstated.

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?

One required parameter (jdText) at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the JD is supplied as text and that the resume side is implicit ('当前简历'), giving partial semantic grounding, but it adds no format, length, or syntax detail 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?

States a specific verb+resource: performs an ATS keyword-coverage check on the current resume against the JD, and enumerates the outputs (keyword extraction, coverage stats, high-risk loss items, embeddable optimized text). An agent can tell what it produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like resume_score_match or resume_rewrite.

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 what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus the many related siblings (resume_score_match, resume_rewrite, gap_analysis). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing guidance.

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