boss_agent_stats

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the schema by disclosing role and platform availability (candidate/recruiter, zhipin), and 'view' implies a non-destructive read, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, auth requirements, or what the statistics represent.

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 sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the availability clause is duplicated ('可用性: 可用性:'), an obvious defect that adds noise. Overall short, but the redundancy costs polish.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema stats tool, the description lists what is counted and who may call it, which is roughly adequate. It does not explain the return shape or how these aggregate stats should be interpreted, leaving a modest gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The four named stat categories effectively describe the output scope rather than any parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (statistics) and enumerates the four stat categories covered: execution, skip, history queue, and circuit-breaker. This is enough to distinguish it from the general sibling boss_stats, though it never names that sibling 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?

The description never says when to choose this over boss_stats, boss_status, or boss_agent_run. The availability bracket (roles=candidate, recruiter; platforms=zhipin) is access gating, not usage guidance, so an agent must infer the selection condition.

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