generate_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (generation explanation, structured JSON, absolute paths) and the default behavior of output_dir, but it does not mention whether files are overwritten, if directories are created, or any required permissions. There is room for more transparency, but the core behavior is reasonably clear.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the purpose, a bulleted list of parameters with clear semantics, and a final line describing the return values. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description still provides adequate context about the generation process and return values. It covers the two required parameters and their defaults, and explains the output_dir behavior. Minor gaps exist (e.g., file overwriting behavior), but for a resume-generation tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the expected flow.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including the type of content expected for background, the purpose of job_position, and the optional nature of requirements and output_dir with its default behavior. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to generate a resume from scratch (从零生成) targeting a specific job position, based on scattered background info. This verb+resource+scope phrasing distinguishes it from the sibling tool optimize_resume, which presumably enhances an existing resume.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you have scattered background info and need a new resume for a target position. It does not explicitly name optimize_resume as an alternative for existing resumes, so the differentiation is slightly implicit, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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