boss_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists communications and supports filtering; it does not mention output shape, pagination behavior, default time range, or access caveats beyond an availability tag. The availability metadata adds some context, but most behavioral traits remain undisclosed.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loads the purpose, but the description contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' fragment and includes availability metadata in prose that might belong in a structured annotation field. It is short but slightly noisy.

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 simple list tool with three optional parameters, the description covers the resource and filters, and the schema documents every parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not reveal what the returned communication list looks like, how pagination behaves, or what the default time window is, so an agent still has some uncertainty before calling it.

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 explains days, page, and from_who. The description adds a light mapping by referring to '发起方' and '时间' filters, which reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('查看沟通列表' — view communication list) and mentions the available filters, so the basic intent is unmistakable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like boss_chatmsg or boss_chat_summary, but the word 'list' narrows the resource enough for an agent to form a useful initial hypothesis.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_hr_chat, boss_chat_summary, or boss_chatmsg. The description only states what the tool can do, not the conditions under which an agent should choose it or avoid it.

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