导入简历

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape {markdown, sourceFormat, warnings}, which hints at partial-failure handling, but says nothing about path resolution requirements, permission/auth needs, file size limits, or error behavior for unsupported or unreadable files.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and formats, then the return shape. The English sentence largely duplicates the Chinese one and adds only 'PDF/Word' phrasing, which is minor redundancy rather than waste.

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 single-parameter import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, which formats it accepts, and what it returns. Remaining gaps are secondary details like error handling for unsupported or corrupted files.

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% and the single 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the supported extensions. The description merely restates the same format list, adding no new semantics such as whether relative paths resolve against a workspace root. 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 and resource ('Import a resume file and convert it to markdown text') and enumerates supported formats, so the tool's job is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings analyze_resume/optimize_resume/export_resume, though the import/convert framing is distinctive enough to separate it from those.

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 format list (.md/.markdown/.txt/.docx/.pdf) tells the agent which inputs qualify, and 'import' suggests this is the entry step before analyze/optimize. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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