boss_chatmsg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only (implied by '查看', but not explicit), whether it requires authentication, whether pagination is supported (the schema has page/count, but the description omits it), or how results are returned. The availability constraint is disclosed, which is positive, but overall the behavioral picture is thin beyond the name.

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 states the core purpose. The availability constraint is appended in brackets, which is slightly clunky (e.g., repeated '可用性:'), but it is concise and contains no redundant filler. It could be structured more cleanly, but it is efficiently sized.

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?

Given a tool with 4 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description should at least explain the basic return format or pagination behavior to be complete. It does neither, and with no annotations, it leaves the agent without essential context about safety, behavior, or output. The availability note is helpful but insufficient for completeness.

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 all four parameters (raw, page, count, security_id) with descriptions. The description adds no further parameter detail. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3 – the description does not need to compensate for gaps, but it also adds no extra value.

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+resource: '查看...聊天消息历史' (view chat message history with a specified friend). Clear what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling 'boss_hr_chatmsg' or 'boss_chat' explicitly. The availability note (candidate role, zhipin platform) does implicitly distinguish it from boss_hr_chatmsg, which likely has different role constraints, but the description doesn't state that.

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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance. There are multiple siblings that relate to chat messages (boss_hr_chatmsg, boss_hr_last_messages, boss_chat_summary). The description does not tell an agent when to pick this one over the others. The availability constraint is a gating condition, which is helpful, but it's not usage guidance.

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