boss_agent_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose the core mechanism and effect (turning on a circuit breaker to stop subsequent automatic execution). However, it omits whether a currently running execution is interrupted, whether the stop is persistent/reversible, and how to resume.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' and mixes availability metadata into the purpose statement, making it slightly cluttered.

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 one-optional-param stop command this is minimally adequate: it states purpose, effect, and availability. But it leaves open what scope the stop applies to (all automation, current run, a specific flow) and the consequences for the current execution, so an agent may still need to infer behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter 'reason' has a definition (熔断原因) plus default. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail about the reason field, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action (打开熔断/stop subsequent automatic execution) and a domain (招聘自动化/recruitment automation), so an agent can see this is the halt control for the automation flow. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_pending, but 'stop' is distinct enough.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when automatic recruitment execution should be halted. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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