boss_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: this is a read/list operation, results carry a stable identifier, and availability is constrained to candidate role on the zhipin platform with no recruiter platform support. It does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior beyond the 'page' param, or whether results are truncated, which matters for a data-listing tool with no output schema.

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?

Two compact clauses plus one bracketed availability note — every element carries information. The core capability is front-loaded and the cross-tool uid handoff follows immediately, so an agent gets the essential facts in the first read.

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 three-parameter, all-optional list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: what is listed, which filters exist, one critical return field (uid), and its use in sibling tools. The main shortfall is the absence of any hint about what else each item contains, which an agent might need before deciding to enumerate conversations.

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 'days', 'page', and the 'from_who' enum. The description only restates the filtering capability at a high level ('按发起方和时间筛选') without adding format, default, or interaction details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 verb and resource ('查看沟通列表' – view the chat/conversation list) and names the supported filters (initiator and time). It also distinguishes itself from message-level siblings by explaining that the returned 'uid' feeds into boss_chatmsg / boss_mark / boss_exchange, which tells an agent this is the list-level entry point rather than a content reader.

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?

It implies when to use it (listing conversations, optionally narrowed by sender or recency) and gives a concrete downstream workflow via uid. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names explicit alternatives — e.g. boss_chat_summary for aggregated views or boss_chatmsg for reading the actual messages — and the role restriction is buried in a bracket rather than framed as a usage condition.

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