boss_agent_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. '查看' suggests a read-only operation, and the listed stat categories add some context, but there is no mention of output format, data freshness, permissions, side effects, or what exactly the circuit-breaker 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 description is brief and front-loads the core purpose before the availability note. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor formatting flaw, but the main content is efficiently expressed.

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 no-parameter stats viewer, the description captures the essential subject matter, but it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over boss_stats and does not describe the shape or scope of the statistics returned. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 effectively 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameter-free tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: it is for viewing execution, skip, history queue, and circuit-breaker statistics in recruitment automation. This is clear enough to identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool boss_stats.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as boss_stats or the other boss_agent_* tools. It implies a stats-related use case but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing cues.

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