定制简历改写

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation method and the output shape (对照表 + optimized resume), suggesting a generation/return rather than an in-place save, which is useful. However it never states whether the stored resume is modified, permission needs, or invocation cost, so key behavioral traits remain unstated.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and JD basis, and it closes with the outputs. No padding. Minor deduction only because cramming method and deliverable into one clause slightly reduces scannability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand in for both. It does describe the two expected artifacts, but leaves open whether the resume is persisted/mutated and how extraFocus affects the result, which an agent needs given the many adjacent resume/profile write tools.

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 coverage is 50% (only extraFocus is documented). The description's '基于 JD' implies jdText is the source JD, adding mild meaning, but it says nothing about extraFocus semantics (e.g., how it steers the rewrite) or format expectations for jdText.

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 (改写/rewrite) and resource (简历), plus the method (基于 JD, STAR, 量化成果, ATS 关键词) and the two deliverables (对照表 + 完整优化简历). Clear and specific, but it never differentiates itself from close siblings like ats_optimize or resume_score_match, whose turf (ATS keywords, JD matching) it visibly overlaps.

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 only implied: the description says rewriting is driven by a JD, so an agent can infer you invoke it when tailoring a resume to a posting. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the overlapping ats_optimize sibling.

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