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. It usefully discloses platform/role availability (candidate-only, zhipin) and that results include a uid, but says nothing about the read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences plus an availability tag, front-loaded with purpose and filtering scope. Minor blemish: the availability tag repeats '可用性:' twice, a small editing artifact but not enough to obscure meaning.

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 3-parameter, no-required-args list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It notes the uid in returned items but doesn't describe what else a chat-list entry contains, how paging works, or the tool's read-only nature, leaving gaps an agent would need.

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 from_who (with an enum). The description only restates the filtering dimensions (发起方/time), which loosely maps to from_who and days, adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource (查看沟通列表) and clarifies the returned items carry a stable uid usable in boss_chatmsg / boss_mark / boss_exchange, which helps distinguish it from those siblings. The availability tag (roles=candidate, recruiter_platforms=-) further separates it from recruiter-side chat tools like boss_hr_chat, though it never names the closest alternative (boss_chat_summary) directly.

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 through its filtering capabilities (按发起方和时间筛选) and the platform/role gating, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like boss_chatmsg or boss_chat_summary. The uid cross-reference hints at a workflow but is a chaining note rather than an invocation condition.

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