简历-JD 匹配打分

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 discloses the output categories and that it uses the current resume, but never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it persists anything, or any auth/rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the action, inputs, and outputs without filler. 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?

For a one-parameter scoring tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return categories. It is less complete on usage routing and safety behavior, but the low complexity limits the gap.

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 100% for the single jdText parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, 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 (匹配度打分) and resources (当前简历 vs 目标 JD), plus enumerated outputs. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling job_score_match, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description implies the scenario but does not route the agent between this and job_score_match, gap_analysis, or ats_optimize.

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