[兼容] 面试复盘

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The only behavioral fact disclosed is equivalence to interview_review; it says nothing about whether this alias is deprecated, still functional, or will be removed, nor about required inputs or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a compatibility shim, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain the parameter and clarify deprecation status. Pointing at interview_review is a start but leaves the agent unable to invoke this tool meaningfully on its own.

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 0% and the sole required parameter (chatLog) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description should have explained what chatLog expects (e.g., an interview transcript), but adds nothing.

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 identifies the tool as a legacy alias equivalent to interview_review, which gives the agent an indirect route to purpose. However, it never states what the operation actually does (an interview debrief/review over a chat log), so an agent that doesn't already know interview_review learns nothing about the resource or action.

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?

"旧版工具名，等价于 interview_review" implies this is the deprecated/compat name and that interview_review is the canonical alternative. That is useful routing context, but it never explicitly says 'prefer interview_review' or states any condition for choosing one over the other.

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