boss_ai_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that this produces drafts (not sends) and returns 2-3 candidates using resume and tone inputs, and the availability tag conveys role/platform preconditions. It stops short of stating side effects, quota/rate limits, or whether outputs are locally staged vs submitted, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by parenthetical capability detail and a bracketed availability tag, so the reader gets the essential 'what' immediately. It is efficiently sized, with only a minor defect: the availability prefix is duplicated ("可用性: 可用性:").

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 4-param generation tool with one required param, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the nature of the produced output, and eligibility constraints adequately. The main omission is how it relates to sibling reply/suggestion tools, which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 all four parameters (tone, resume, context, recruiter_message) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values for tone. The description only corroborates resume reference and tone preference at a high level and adds no format, length, or interaction detail, matching the baseline 3 for schema-driven params.

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: generate reply drafts (生成回复草稿) based on recruiter messages, with concrete output scope (2-3 candidates, resume reference, tone preference). The availability tag (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin) signals it is the candidate-side counterpart of the recruiter-side boss_hr_reply, aiding differentiation, though that sibling is not named explicitly.

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 phrase "基于招聘者消息" implies the trigger context, and the availability bracket states the platform/role preconditions (candidate role, zhipin platform), which is useful eligibility guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over adjacent tools like boss_ai_suggest, boss_ai_chat_coach, or boss_hr_reply, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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