boss_agent_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: it halts future auto-execution rather than killing in-flight work. But it omits whether the stop is reversible, what happens to queued tasks, and any permission requirements beyond the availability tags.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single compact sentence, with availability metadata appended. Slightly noisy due to the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix, but otherwise efficient with no filler.

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-annotation, single-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and audience constraints but leaves behavioral questions unanswered (reversibility, effect on pending tasks, restart path). Adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'reason' parameter is fully documented in the schema (with type and default). The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, so this is the baseline case where the schema does the work.

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 ('打开熔断，停止后续自动执行' – open the circuit breaker and stop subsequent automatic execution) on a clear resource (recruitment automation). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_train as the stop counterpart, though the phrasing is somewhat terse.

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 bracketed availability block specifies roles and platforms (candidate/recruiter, zhipin), which gives context about who may invoke it. However, it never states when to stop automation versus continuing it, nor references any alternative tool, leaving usage only implied.

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