boss_chatmsg

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It discloses role/platform availability, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the compliance gating referenced only in the schema's 'raw' parameter. For a data-read tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure would be expected.

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 sentence plus a compact availability tag, with purpose front-loaded before constraints. Nothing is wasted and nothing redundant repeats the title or schema.

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?

The description covers purpose and eligibility for a four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. It omits what the response looks like (and how 'raw' changes it) and any note on pagination defaults, leaving an agent to infer message-retrieval behavior from the schema alone.

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 all four parameters (raw, page, count, security_id) are already documented in the schema, including the uid-vs-security_id guidance. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at baseline.

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: '查看与指定好友的聊天消息历史' (view chat message history with a specified contact). An agent can tell this retrieves messages rather than resumes or chat lists. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling boss_hr_chatmsg, though the roles=candidate tag implicitly separates them.

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 gives concrete eligibility constraints: roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-, which tells the agent which callers should and should not use it. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative for recruiters (boss_hr_chatmsg), so routing requires inference.

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