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 disclosure burden. '查看' (view) plus the eligibility bracket establishes this as a read operation scoped to specific roles and platforms, which is useful. It still omits what the queue contains, whether it returns pending items with IDs suitable for approve/reject, and whether any state changes occur, which matters for a review-queue tool with action siblings.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource view front-loaded, followed by a clearly delimited availability block. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed metadata is dense and machine-style rather than explanatory, which slightly reduces readability.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth. It establishes eligibility and that this is a legacy compatibility view, but does not describe what the agent receives back or how the review queue relates to the approve/reject siblings, leaving a meaningful gap for a workflow 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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for an empty parameter surface is 4. The bracketed role and platform constraints are not parameters but effectively communicate invocation eligibility, which is a small bonus rather than a deduction.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: a view of the legacy manual review queue exposed through the compatibility interface. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as boss_agent_pending or boss_agent_review_approve/reject, so an agent cannot infer from the description alone which of these queues or actions it should use.

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 bracket supplies real preconditions: the allowed roles (candidate, recruiter) and platforms (zhipin only). That is a genuine eligibility gate, but the description never says when to pick this tool over boss_agent_pending, nor when not to use it (for example, only in legacy/compatibility flows), leaving the routing decision implicit.

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