generate_interview_questionGenerates tailored interview questions from a job description to help job seekers practice for interviews and mock sessions.
旧版工具名，等价于 interview_question_bank。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jdText | Yes |
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, yet it only asserts equivalence to another tool. It says nothing about latency, model invocation, side effects, or return content, and provides no indication of whether the alias is preferred or discouraged.
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 short sentence that front-loads the two most useful facts (legacy status, equivalence). Nothing is padded, though it is arguably under-specified rather than ideally concise.
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 one-parameter compatibility shim the description supplies the key redirect target, which is the most important thing here. However, it omits any explicit deprecation guidance and any meaning for jdText, so an agent still lacks a clear instruction on which tool to prefer.
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?
There is one parameter (jdText) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of it whatsoever. The parameter name is self-suggesting, but the description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 states this is a legacy alias and names its canonical equivalent (interview_question_bank), which is genuine routing information an agent can act on. Combined with the name and title it is clear this generates interview questions, but the description itself does not restate the actual function, so it stops short of a clean 5.
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?
Naming the equivalent tool implies the two are interchangeable and hints that the canonical tool is preferred, but there is no explicit deprecation directive or condition for choosing one over the other. Usage is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.