场景化工作流

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the fallback behavior when scene is omitted and characterizes the return as ordered, copyable steps, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about output format details, whether results are cached/static, or any constraints, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional-parameter fallback follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by characterizing the return (ordered tool-call steps and phrasing) plus the all-scenarios fallback. For a single-optional-parameter orchestration tool this is nearly complete, with only minor detail about output structure missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum of scene values is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful omission semantics (omitting scene returns all scenarios), but this is a single detail layered on an otherwise schema-complete parameter.

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 purpose: it returns copyable step sequences ('which tools to call in what order, what to say') organized by job-hunting stage. This is clearly an orchestration/meta tool, distinct from execution tools like mock_interview_start. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling jobok_quickstart, which keeps it from a 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?

It gives one concrete usage hint – omit scene when the scenario is unknown to get the full list – which is genuinely useful for an optional parameter. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over jobok_quickstart or how it relates to the concrete action tools it recommends. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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