boss_agent_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a destructive/mutative action (stopping execution) but fails to disclose side effects, reversibility, or required permissions beyond role constraints. The behavioral impact is underdescribed.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The availability information in brackets is somewhat cluttered but does not significantly detract from readability. It is efficient overall.

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 simple stop tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about what happens after stopping, whether the action is reversible, or how it interacts with other agent tools. The absence of an output schema is not critical but the description could provide more closure.

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 fully covers the single optional parameter 'reason' with a default and description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so it meets the baseline expectation without improvement.

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 tool stops subsequent automatic execution in recruitment automation, with a specific action '打开熔断' (open circuit breaker). However, it does not explicitly define what 'subsequent automatic execution' refers to, leaving some ambiguity about the exact resource being stopped.

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 and platforms) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_agent_pending or boss_agent_review. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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