生成求职信

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of whether a stored profile/resume is read implicitly, no auth or quota notes, and no indication of what the generated letter looks like. For a generation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the action and inputs front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of how the resume is sourced or what is returned, the definition is too thin for a generation tool. An agent cannot tell whether a resume must be loaded first, whether the call is safe/idempotent, or what the result contains.

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 coverage is 75% (tone, company, jobTitle documented), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds only marginal meaning: '基于简历与 JD' hints at the undocumented jdText input and '支持指定语气风格' echoes the tone parameter without defining valid values or a default beyond what the schema says.

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 (生成定制求职信) plus the two inputs it operates on (简历与 JD), which lets an agent distinguish it from resume_rewrite and ats_optimize. It stops short of naming any sibling it is not, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 prerequisites (you need a resume and a JD) but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as resume_rewrite or resume_score_match. An agent must guess at routing among the many resume/interview siblings.

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