boss_agent_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context with the availability constraints (roles=candidate/recruiter; platforms=zhipin), which tells the agent who may call it. However, it never states that the call is read-only, whether it touches shared state, how fresh the counters are, or what the figures represent, which are the traits that matter most for a statistics endpoint.

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?

One front-loaded clause states the domain and the statistic categories, followed by a bracketed availability note. There is no filler, though the availability bracket is dense and mixes two different constraint families without explanation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about return values; it names four statistic categories but does not indicate the shape, units, or time window of any of them. Since this is a low-complexity zero-parameter read, the definition is adequate, but it could do more to describe what the caller will see.

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 per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is exhaustive at 100% coverage. Nothing in the description is needed to call it, and nothing is missing.

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 (view/查看) and enumerates the resources measured: execution, skipped, historical queue, and circuit-breaker statistics. That is clearly a reporting tool for the agent automation, distinguishable from the general boss_stats, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from boss_stats or boss_agent_pending.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With many adjacent siblings (boss_stats, boss_agent_pending, boss_agent_run, boss_agent_review), the definition never says when to consult this stats view versus those, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The reader must infer that it is a read-only monitoring call.

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