boss_ai_chat_coach

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a non-mutating diagnostic (it 'diagnoses' and 'suggests'), and the availability line adds who-can-call context, but it says nothing about whether state changes, token cost, or how templates are generated. Moderate rather than rich disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence captures the core action plus outputs, and the availability tag is appended. Slightly marred by the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' text, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description names the return artifacts (diagnosis, next-step actions, message templates) so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with 100% schema coverage, it is largely complete, though it lacks differentiation from siblings and any note about template/style interaction.

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%, so chat_text, style, and resume are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource: diagnose communication status from chat records and return next-step suggestions plus ready-made message templates. Clear about the output artifacts (diagnosis + action advice + templates), but does not differentiate itself from plausible siblings like boss_ai_reply or boss_ai_suggest.

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 availability tag (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-) implicitly gates when the tool can be invoked, which is useful. However there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling reply/coach tools, so usage is only implied.

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