挖掘个人优势

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses substantial behavior: the forced four-step chain (证据→行为→能力→岗位信号), the tags applied to each strength, and a hard constraint forbidding personality labels. It stops short of saying whether results are persisted or what the return payload looks like.

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 tight clauses, purpose front-loaded, with the processing constraint immediately following. Dense but every element (sources, chain, tagging, prohibition) carries information; no filler sentences.

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-param, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the method and the shape of each produced strength. The remaining gap is clarifying the return format and whether the mined strengths are persisted or only returned for a later strength_save call.

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%, so all three params are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the input sources (resume + supplementary materials) and the role-signal translation, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 (挖掘) and resource (个人优势) sourced from resume plus supplementary materials. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like strength_save, strength_list, or strength_delete, which operate on already-produced strengths.

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 description frames the activity but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. save the mined result via strength_save, or run before/after resume_score_match). Usage is implied by the workflow rather than explicitly routed.

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