boss_agent_stats

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 indicates a read operation ('查看') but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the data is real-time, historical, or if any permissions beyond roles are required. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence plus an availability note. However, there is a minor redundancy in the availability section ('可用性: 可用性:'), slightly reducing conciseness.

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 output schema, the description should explain what the statistics include. It mentions several types (execution, manual review, pending, circuit breaker) but does not detail the format, structure, or meaning of these stats. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the guidelines, the baseline score is 4 for no parameters. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed.

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 clearly states the specific verb '查看' (view) and resource '统计' (statistics) for execution, manual review, pending, and circuit breaker statuses. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boss_agent_run, boss_agent_pending, etc., which focus on specific actions.

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 availability constraints (roles, platforms) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over its siblings. The implied context is that this is for overview/stats, while others handle specific operations, but no direct comparison or alternatives are provided.

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