boss_ai_reply

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses generated output (2-3 drafts) and supporting features, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether the tool modifies any state. Lacks explicit safety/reversibility info.

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 concise sentence plus a bracketed availability note. It is front-loaded with the primary action. The extra availability info is slightly clunky but not overly verbose. Efficient overall.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the main function but omits return format (e.g., structure of drafts) and detailed behavioral context. It mentions key features but is not fully comprehensive for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds that 2-3 drafts are generated, which is not in schema, but does not further elaborate on parameter meanings or constraints. With full schema coverage, 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's purpose: '基于招聘者消息生成回复草稿' (generate reply drafts based on recruiter message). It specifies key features: 2-3 candidates, resume reference, tone preference. This uniquely identifies it among siblings (e.g., boss_ai_analyze_jd, boss_ai_chat_coach).

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=candidate, platforms) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like boss_ai_suggest or boss_ai_chat_coach. Usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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