boss_agent_review

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 only includes availability info and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The tool has no parameters, but still lacks transparency.

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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The availability information is embedded, though slightly cryptic. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and usage constraints. However, it does not explain what the 'review queue' contains or what the agent can expect from the response. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds availability context but no parameter-specific information.

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?

Description states '查看人工复核队列' (view manual review queue), clearly indicating the tool's purpose. The name 'boss_agent_review' and siblings like 'boss_agent_review_approve' and 'boss_agent_review_reject' reinforce that this is for viewing, not acting. However, it doesn't specify what is returned (e.g., list of items).

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 provides availability constraints (roles=recruiter, platforms) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. From context, it's implied for viewing the review queue, but no direct guidance on when to prefer it over approve/reject.

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