boss_agent_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation (execution and lead generation) but never states what real platform actions are performed, what permissions/auth are needed, or whether the run is reversible; the dry_run default is only in the schema, not explained here.

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 core purpose sentence is reasonably front-loaded and compact, but the trailing availability bracket contains a duplicated token ('[可用性: 可用性:'), signaling sloppiness, and the stage enumeration adds length without much precision.

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 multi-stage orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the conceptual flow but omits what gets executed, what the run returns, and side-effect behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters (limit, dry_run) are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('运行一轮' / run a round) and enumerates the pipeline stages (scan, decide, threshold control, execute, lead generation), which distinguishes it from siblings like boss_agent_train or boss_agent_review. It is clear enough to identify the tool, though the stage list is somewhat nebulous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_agent_review, boss_agent_pending, or boss_agent_stop, nor any prerequisites or exclusion conditions. The bracketed availability tag (roles, platforms) is a gating constraint, not usage guidance.

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