求职整体复盘

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the computation basis (all application records) and the sections the report produces, which helps the agent understand the output shape, but it says nothing about permissions, whether it is a pure read, or behavior when there are no records.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that spends its words on the actual report contents rather than filler. Slightly list-heavy but no waste.

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 an aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the return format and edge cases (e.g. empty application history). It names the report sections, which partially covers the output, but format and failure/empty-state behavior remain unspecified.

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?

Only one parameter (period) exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including an example format ('2026年3月'). The description never mentions the period parameter or what default window applies when it is omitted, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (生成复盘报告) plus the resource (求职复盘 based on 全部投递记录) and enumerates the report contents: funnel conversion, insights, diagnosis, and next-stage goals. The scope (over the full application history) distinguishes it from narrower aggregation siblings like application_stats, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and no comparison to adjacent tools such as application_stats or interview_review. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this is the overall retrospective vs the per-interview review or a basic stats dump.

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