boss_agent_train

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a dry-run-by-default posture, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, what state the training mutates, what the threshold is, or reversibility.

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 sentence is short, but the trailing availability tag is redundant and duplicated ('可用性: 可用性:'), adding noise. Purpose is front-loaded, so structure is acceptable but not clean.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single documented parameter, the description should explain the threshold concept and what training produces. It leaves the agent guessing about the calibration workflow and its relationship to sibling agent tools.

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?

Only one optional parameter ('limit') exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about batching or limit semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific function ('train calibration mode, default dry-run actions that meet a threshold'), which is more than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_stop, so an agent cannot easily tell which agent command to pick.

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?

It notes that actions meeting the threshold are rehearsed by default, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus boss_agent_run or boss_agent_review. The bracketed availability string is metadata, not usage guidance.

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