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 burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait: by default it 'rehearses' actions that meet a threshold, suggesting a non-executing/simulated mode. But it doesn't state side effects, whether actions are queued for review, what 'threshold' means, or any permission/rate-limit constraints.

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 stated succinctly and front-loaded in a single line. The inclusion of availability metadata is useful but contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo, which slightly reduces polish. Overall it is compact and scannable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, an agent needs more context about what happens after training: whether actions are executed, reviewed, or only simulated; what threshold means; and how this relates to boss_agent_review/approve/reject. The current description leaves these gaps, so it is incomplete despite the simple parameter schema.

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 coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter (`limit`), so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific explanation. The description does not mention `limit` or how it influences the training run, but the schema already documents it adequately.

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 conveys a specific function: a training/calibration mode whose default behavior is to rehearse threshold-satisfying actions ('训练校准模式，默认演练满足阈值的动作'). It names a clear verb and resource, and the phrase '训练校准模式' helps set it apart from the execution/review siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling or define what 'threshold' means.

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 tool's purpose implies it is for training/calibration rather than production execution, which gives some context. But there are no explicit when-to-use conditions, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many boss_agent_* and boss_* siblings. An agent must infer when to choose this over boss_agent_run or boss_agent_review.

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