归档岗位列表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'all archived jobs' but does not state read-only status, authentication needs, pagination, ordering, or how the optional keyword affects results.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the missing usage and parameter details.

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, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin to tell an agent what the tool returns, whether results are paginated, or how to use keyword filtering. It covers only the bare operation.

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 description never mentions the single optional 'keyword' parameter. The description says 'all archived jobs', which may even mislead an agent away from using the keyword filter.

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 and resource: '列出' (list) '归档岗位' (archived jobs). It implicitly distinguishes archived jobs from active jobs, but it does not name or contrast with sibling tools such as job_archive_add or job_archive_delete.

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 no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It only describes the operation itself, leaving the agent to infer when an archived-job listing is appropriate.

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