boss_apply

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency ('幂等，不会重复投递'), which is valuable, and includes availability context. However, it does not describe the effects of an application/communication action, permissions, or result behavior. The duplicated '可用性:' is a minor flaw.

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 text is short and front-loads the action before the idempotency note and availability metadata. The duplicated '可用性:' is a minor formatting flaw, but overall the description is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out important context for an action tool: what a successful call returns, side effects beyond idempotency, and how this action differs from nearby chat/greet tools. The availability block helps but is not sufficient for complete guidance.

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%; both parameters are described as '职位的 encrypt_job_id' and '职位的 security_id'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema-based baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('发起投递或立即沟通动作') and adds the idempotency trait, making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling chat/greet tools like boss_chat or boss_greet, though the name and '投递' carry most of the differentiation.

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 availability block gives role/platform constraints ('roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin') but provides no guidance on when to choose boss_apply over alternatives such as boss_chat or boss_greet, and no exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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