boss_chat_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral context — the source of truth is chat history and access is restricted by role (candidate only) and platform (zhipin) — but it is silent on whether the operation is read-only, whether it consumes AI quota, or whether results are persisted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating purpose, followed by a compact availability tag. Slight waste from the duplicated label ('可用性: 可用性:'), but overall tight and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it produces (structured summary, next-step suggestions), where the data comes from, and the access constraints. It stops short of describing summary granularity or length, which would help an agent set expectations.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents security_id and even the recommendation to source the uid from boss_chat. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: generating a structured summary plus next-step suggestions from chat history. It is clearly distinct in kind from sibling utilities like boss_chatmsg or boss_history, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with plausible alternatives such as boss_digest or boss_ai_suggest.

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 bracketed availability block (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) does tell the agent when the tool is callable at all, which is genuine usage gating. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this summary tool over siblings like boss_digest or boss_history, leaving the choice implicit.

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