mock_interview_answerRecord a candidate's answer to a mock interview question, save it to the session, and return interviewer feedback, score, and follow-up to continue the practice.
记录候选人某题的问答，保存到会话，并返回「点评 + 打分 + 追问」的面试官指令，用于继续推进模拟面试。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | No | 如已对该题打分(0-10)可传入 | |
| answer | Yes | 候选人的回答 | |
| comment | No | 该题点评，可选 | |
| question | Yes | 面试官提出的问题 | |
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the side effect (saves to the session) and the return shape (an interviewer instruction of comment + score + follow-up), but says nothing about auth, preconditions, or failure behavior for this write operation.
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 moves from the action to the persistence side effect to the returned value, with no filler. Slightly dense but every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the returned interviewer instruction (comment + score + follow-up), which is the key detail an agent needs. Reasonably complete for a 5-param session-recording tool, though workflow prerequisites remain unstated.
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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema fields provide, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (记录/保存) and resource (候选人某题的问答), plus the return payload (点评+打分+追问). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mock_interview_start/end and interview_review, though it never names them 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?
'用于继续推进模拟面试' implies the mid-session recording context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. mock_interview_end/interview_review, and no stated preconditions such as requiring an active sessionId from mock_interview_start.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.