导出简历

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that PDF export auto-detects Chinese fonts (PingFang/Noto/雅黑), but never states that it writes/overwrites a file on disk, whether parent directories are created, or what happens on failure.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first. The English sentence largely re-states the Chinese one, which is mild redundancy but keeps the definition compact.

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-required-param write tool with no annotations and no output schema, key facts are missing: overwrite behavior at out_path, directory creation, and what the call returns. The font-detection note is a nice touch but does not close those gaps.

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%, so all three parameters (format, content, out_path) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates out_path and the format list, adding no syntax, path, or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 (导出/export) plus the resource (Markdown 简历) and enumerates the exact output formats (md/pdf/docx). That is naturally distinguishable from the siblings import_resume, analyze_resume, and optimize_resume without opening a schema.

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 never says when to choose export over its siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Apart from the format options and the font note, the agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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