开始模拟面试

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a session is created and that sessionId and opening instructions are returned, which helps the agent chain the next call. But it omits whether this consumes an LLM/paid call, whether permissions or existing profile/resume data are required, and what happens on repeated invocation (multiple concurrent sessions).

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then return values, then the workflow. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 helpfully notes the returned sessionId and opening instructions, and it lays out the full session lifecycle with its siblings. The main gap is the undocumented company/jobTitle parameters, which leaves the input side incomplete for a tool that generates an LLM-driven interview session.

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 only 33% – jdText is documented ('目标岗位 JD') but company and jobTitle have no descriptions anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. An agent gets no guidance on what company/jobTitle should contain or whether they are optional context.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: '创建一个模拟面试会话' (create a mock interview session) plus what it returns. It clearly positions itself as the entry point of the mock_interview workflow, distinguishing it from mock_interview_answer and mock_interview_end. It stops short of distinguishing from adjacent creation tools like generate_interview_question or interview_question_bank.

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 explicitly names the two follow-on tools (mock_interview_answer for recording each round, mock_interview_end for finishing and reviewing), which is strong sequencing guidance. However, it doesn't state the condition under which an agent should start a mock interview at all versus using the question bank or other interview tools.

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