boss_chat_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by listing availability roles/platforms (candidate; zhilian, zhipin), but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what output shape to expect, or any side effects.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates purpose efficiently. The duplicated '可用性:' tag is a minor formatting flaw, but overall there is no wasted prose.

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 tool with complete schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no usage-vs-alternative guidance, the agent is left to infer what the structured summary includes and when this tool should be chosen over boss_digest or boss_history.

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% for the only parameter, security_id, described as '好友的 security_id'. The description adds no parameter-specific 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: '基于聊天历史生成结构化摘要与下一步建议' (generate a structured summary and next-step suggestions from chat history). This clearly conveys what the tool does and is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as boss_digest or boss_history.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when a chat summary with next-step suggestions is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance or exclusions, and the included availability block is a restriction rather than usage direction.

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