导出简历到本地文件

Does 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 does disclose the source-of-content behavior (current active resume, or a resume body you pass in), which is useful workflow context after resume_rewrite. However, it says nothing about whether an existing file at outputPath is overwritten, whether directories are created, what is returned (no output schema), or error conditions for a file-writing 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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the concrete purposes. Nothing is wasted and no filler precedes the key information.

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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose and content sourcing but omits file-write semantics (overwrite behavior, failure modes, return value). Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, but not complete for a mutation that touches the user's filesystem.

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 all three parameters (format enum, content, outputPath) are already documented in the schema, including the default path and default format. The description only restates the content-source fallback, adding no syntax or format detail 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 (导出/export) and resource (简历/resume) plus the destination (本地文件), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling data_export, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 便于保存、作为附件投递或继续编辑 gives downstream use cases, which implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative data_export. Usage must be inferred.

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