gap_analysisAnalyzes your resume against a target job description to surface skill gaps, top priorities, transferable strengths, and concrete action steps.
对当前简历与目标 JD 进行能力盘点与短板分析，输出能力雷达、核心短板 TOP5、可迁移优势与落地动作。建议记录 LLM 给出的短板后再调用 learning_path_generate。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jdText | No | 目标 JD，可选（不传则按画像分析） | |
| targetRole | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does 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 partially compensates by describing the output content (radar, TOP5, strengths, actions), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it does not state side effects, whether it is read-only, persistence behavior, or permission requirements.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the follow-up recommendation. No filler. It could be marginally tighter but every clause contributes.
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 or annotations, the description does the work of naming the return content, which is the key missing piece. The remaining gap is the undocumented targetRole parameter, but overall an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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%: jdText is documented as optional with fallback behavior, but targetRole has no description anywhere. The description references 'resume vs target JD', loosely mapping to jdText, but adds no meaning for targetRole and no format or syntax guidance.
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?
Names a specific action (capability inventory + gap analysis) on a specific resource (current resume vs target JD) and enumerates the concrete outputs (capability radar, TOP5 shortfalls, transferable strengths, action items). It is clear as a standalone statement, though it does not differentiate itself from potential overlap with resume_score_match or job_score_match.
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?
Provides a workflow hint by recommending recording the shortfalls before calling learning_path_generate, which implies usage context. However it never states when to choose this tool over close alternatives like resume_score_match or job_score_match, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.