分析简历

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the result (a completeness score, a list of missing/weak items, follow-up questions, placeholder detection), which implies a non-mutating read. However, it never states that the resume is left unmodified or how it behaves on unreadable/missing files, which matters because optimize_resume is a sibling that does mutate.

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 content is front-loaded and dense, with the core purpose first and the optional JD behavior last. The trailing English sentence partially restates the Chinese clause, which is mild redundancy rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the report contents an agent should expect. Combined with the schema's mutual-exclusion note for path/content, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only edge-case behavior (file not found, non-resume input) is unaddressed.

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%: jd, path and content are each documented, including the 与 content 二选一 / 与 path 二选一 constraint. The description restates only the optional JD keyword-matching role and adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (分析简历结构与完整度) and enumerates concrete outputs: 分区识别, 完整度评分 0-100, 缺失/偏弱项, 问题清单, 占位符检测, plus optional JD 关键词匹配. This makes it unmistakably an analysis (not a mutation) operation, distinguishable in kind from import_resume/optimize_resume/export_resume. It never names a sibling or states the boundary explicitly, so it falls just 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for assessing a resume, and the optional JD parameter is flagged as 可选 for keyword matching. There is no guidance on when to pick this over optimize_resume (e.g., analyze first, then optimize) or on preconditions such as the resume already being imported.

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