boss_ai_fit

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 states it 'generates reports' but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or describe any side effects. The availability note is about constraints, not behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence with an appended availability block. It is moderately concise but could be better structured (e.g., separate availability metadata). Every part is useful but not optimally organized.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the output format or how the report is returned. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., cached job details must exist). The tool is moderately complex, and more detail is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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%. The description adds context about the report content but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or usage beyond what is in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool generates per-job match reports (match degree, capability gap, keyword hits) based on local resume and cached job details. It distinguishes itself from sibling AI tools like boss_ai_analyze_jd (which analyzes a single JD) by focusing on matching against multiple cached jobs.

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 provides availability constraints (roles, platforms) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., cached jobs must exist).

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