boss_batch_greet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the greeting limit and availability constraints; it does not disclose side effects, whether messages are actually sent, permission requirements, rate limits beyond the count, or what happens in preview/dry-run mode. This is thin for a tool that likely performs a real-world action.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the action and limit. However, it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix and packs the availability clause into the same sentence, which slightly harms clarity without adding structural value.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits expected return values, error behavior, confirmation behavior, and the practical implications of the dry_run flag. The availability details are useful, but an agent still lacks essential execution context for a side-effecting batch operation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal context by tying the tool to 'search' and mentioning a limit of 10, but it does not enrich the meaning of query, city, limit, or dry_run beyond what the schema provides.

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 — batch greeting after search — and includes a concrete constraint (up to 10). It clearly identifies the tool's resource and operation, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to distinguish itself from, unlike stronger examples.

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 when to use the tool ('after search') and includes role/platform availability, which provides useful context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, does not mention alternatives like boss_greet or boss_apply, and leaves the selection criteria between sibling tools to inference.

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