boss_chat_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the input source (chat history) and what is produced (a structured summary and next-step suggestions), but says nothing about whether an AI model is invoked, whether calls are slow or costly, whether the operation is read-only, or what the output format looks like.

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?

One sentence plus a bracketed availability tag: the purpose comes first and nothing is wasted. The bracketed metadata is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it is compact rather than verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should have described the shape of the summary and suggestions, yet it only names them. Combined with the absence of annotations on a model-backed, possibly slow operation, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter, and the schema documentation covers 100% of the input schema; it even explains the recommended uid source from boss_chat and cross-request stability. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Names a specific verb and resource: generate a structured summary plus next-step suggestions from chat history. The availability clause (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) further narrows what this tool is for. It does not name a sibling to contrast with, even though boss_ai_chat_coach and boss_chat are near neighbors, so it falls short of a 5.

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 tag gives a real usage gate: it applies only to candidate-role users on zhipin, so recruiters must not call it. Beyond that it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to an alternative such as boss_ai_chat_coach for coaching or boss_chatmsg for raw messages.

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