learning_path_generateCreate a week-by-week sprint learning plan from your skill gaps and target role, including projects and checkpoints, then save it locally.
基于短板清单生成指定周数的冲刺学习路线（逐周计划、实战项目、验收机制），并保存到本地。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gaps | Yes | 待补短板清单（可来自 gap_analysis 的结论） | |
| save | No | 是否保存路线，默认 true | |
| weeks | No | 周数，默认 8 | |
| analysisId | No | 关联的分析报告 id | |
| targetRole | Yes | 目标岗位 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a side effect ('并保存到本地', saves locally) and enumerates the output sections (weekly plan, projects, acceptance). However, it omits whether saving is mandatory, overwrite/overwrite-risk behavior, and size/latency expectations for a generation tool.
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 that packs the input basis, the configurable dimension, the output contents, and the save side effect without filler. Efficient, though it omits any second sentence that could have covered usage routing.
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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and output sections, so an agent knows what it will receive. It still lacks any explicit relationship/sequencing guidance relative to gap_analysis and no destructive/overwrite behavior detail.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only a partial echo of that (specifying week count), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb and resource (生成...学习路线, generate a learning path) and details the output content (逐周计划、实战项目、验收机制). It is clearly distinct from siblings like gap_analysis or resume_rewrite, though it never explicitly names the sibling it consumes (gap_analysis) within the description text.
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?
Usage is implied by '基于短板清单' (based on a gap list) and the schema note that gaps can come from gap_analysis. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving the routing inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.