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 behavioral disclosure burden. The word 查看 (view) implies a read-only operation, and the availability line gives access context. However, it does not disclose the return shape, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a simple view tool.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the compatibility context, which is good. However, it contains a redundant '可用性: 可用性:' duplication and a cluttered nested availability block. It is concise in length but not cleanly structured.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to identify what resource is being viewed. It does not explain what the queue view returns or how it relates to the approve/reject/pending siblings, leaving a modest but not severe gap for a zero-parameter read 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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; the description's availability constraints add useful context even though they are not parameter definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 查看 (view) the 旧版本遗留的人工复核队列 (legacy manual review queue). It also identifies itself as a compatibility interface, which hints it is distinct from newer siblings, though it does not explicitly name them. This is clear but only weakly differentiates from sibling review-related tools.

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 includes explicit availability constraints (roles=candidate, recruiter; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=zhilian, zhipin), providing clear calling context. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like boss_agent_review_approve, boss_agent_review_reject, or boss_agent_pending, nor does it mention exclusions. The usage context is implied by the wording 'legacy manual review queue' rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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