boss_agent_run

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

While annotations are absent, the description discloses role and platform availability and mentions actions like scanning and execution, signaling mutation. However, it lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or whether actions are reversible.

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 sentence with an availability note, but the repetition of '可用性:' and lack of structure make it less clean. Could be more concise and organized.

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's complexity and absence of output schema, the description omits crucial details like return values, workflow stages, and when to choose alternatives. Incomplete for an automation 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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (limit, dry_run). The description does not add any further meaning or integration, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: running automation rounds for scanning, decision-making, execution/human review, and lead generation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boss_agent_review by implying this is the main automation run, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_agent_pending or boss_agent_review. The description only provides availability constraints (roles and platforms) but not usage context or preconditions.

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