boss_agent_train

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions '自动判断但动作进入人审' (automatic judgment with human review), implying that actions require approval. However, it fails to clarify whether the tool modifies state, is destructive, or what happens to sessions, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise, using one sentence to convey purpose and behavior, followed by structured availability info. It front-loads the key idea, though the availability section repeats '可用性:' unnecessarily.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (training mode with human review) and no output schema, the description lacks important details such as return values, effects on sessions, prerequisites, or error conditions. It is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the single parameter 'limit' ('本轮最多处理多少个会话'). The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, 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 states '训练校准模式' (training calibration mode) and '自动判断但动作进入人审' (automatic judgment with human review), clearly indicating the tool's purpose as a calibration training mode for recruitment automation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boss_agent_run and boss_agent_review, though the exact scope could be more explicit.

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=recruiter and platforms=zhilian, zhipin, indicating when the tool is applicable. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_agent_run or boss_agent_review, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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