boss_ai_suggest

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral info: it sorts suggestions by priority and does not modify the resume. However, it does not disclose how suggestions are generated, whether it reads the resume from storage, or any rate limits. Availability constraints are helpful but limited.

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 concise: one sentence with a clear verb and resource, plus an appended availability note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more structure could be beneficial, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or format of suggestions. It does not cover prerequisites (e.g., resume must exist) or edge cases. With sibling tools like boss_ai_analyze_jd and boss_ai_optimize, more differentiation would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context ('based on target position', 'sorted by priority') but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 it provides resume improvement suggestions based on a target job, sorted by priority, and explicitly says it does not modify the resume. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boss_ai_optimize which may modify the resume.

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 implies usage by stating it does not modify the resume, hinting that modification requires another tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when to use versus when not to use. The availability constraints are mentioned but not usage context.

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