boss_agent_pending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. '查看' implies a read operation and '旧版本遗留' hints at legacy reads, but there is no detail on return shape, ordering, volume, or auth beyond the role/platform tag. Disclosure is minimal for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence is efficient, but the availability bracket is malformed with a duplicated label ('可用性: 可用性:'), wasting tokens and adding noise.

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 no-param, no-output-schema viewer, the description gives the core purpose plus availability. However, it never explains what the pending queue actually contains or what invoking it returns, leaving a meaningful gap for an automation-oriented tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing in the schema for the description to compensate for.

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 ('查看'/view) and resource ('旧版本遗留的待执行动作队列'/legacy pending action queue from old versions), so the agent knows it inspects a leftover queue. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from agent siblings like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_review, but the 'legacy/compatibility' framing is distinctive enough.

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 availability bracket lists roles and platforms, which is a prerequisite hint, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no routing versus the many agent_* siblings. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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