boss_ai_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that 2-3 candidate drafts are produced, not a single message, and that this only works for the candidate role on the zhipin platform. It does not state whether drafts are ever sent automatically, whether there are rate limits, or what the drafts contain, so important behavioral gaps remain.

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 definition is a single compact sentence front-loaded with the action and the output shape, followed by a clearly bracketed availability constraint. No sentence is wasted, though the bracketed metadata is opaque to a reader unfamiliar with the shorthand.

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?

The essentials are covered: purpose, output cardinality, and platform/role gating for a 4-parameter tool with a fully documented schema. Because there are no annotations and no output schema, a stronger definition would spell out the draft format and confirm the tool has no side effects; the definition stops short of that.

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, including the tone enum and the optional resume and context fields, are already documented in the schema. The phrase 支持简历参考和语气偏好 only restates the resume and tone parameters and adds no new meaning such as expected formats or how many resume names are accepted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: generating reply drafts (回复草稿) from a recruiter message, and it states that 2-3 candidate drafts are produced. The availability tag (roles=candidate, recruiter_platforms=-) implicitly separates it from the recruiter-side sibling boss_hr_reply, but this separation is not stated in prose.

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 intended usage is implied: generate a reply when a recruiter has messaged you, with resume reference and a tone preference. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given, such as a pointer to boss_ai_chat_coach for live coaching or to boss_hr_reply for the recruiter side.

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