加载简历

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the resume becomes the current active resume (a state mutation), files are auto-parsed for four formats, and skill keywords are auto-extracted afterward. It omits what happens to a previously active resume (overwrite?), error behavior on unparsable files, and any permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and outcome, then enumerates the two input modes in a single compact, well-structured sentence. No filler or repetition.

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 and no annotations, the description covers both parameters, the resulting state change, and post-load processing well enough to invoke the tool correctly. Missing edge-case behavior (overwrite of existing active resume, failure modes) keeps it from 5.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the filePath schema entry even lists the same supported extensions. The description adds only the 'absolute path' qualifier and the either/or relationship, so the 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 (加载/load) and resource (简历/resume), and adds the consequential outcome '保存为当前活跃简历' which distinguishes it from a read-only sibling like resume_get. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

Clearly explains the two mutually exclusive invocation modes — pass an absolute filePath to have the tool parse the file, or pass raw text via content — which is exactly the routing decision an agent must make. There is no guidance on when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for other resume operations, so it stops at 4.

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