boss_cities

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a non-destructive listing and adds availability constraints, but it does not mention output format, pagination, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose is one concise sentence and the availability info is front-loaded in brackets. However, '可用性: 可用性:' contains a duplicated label, which is minor redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, approximate result count, and availability constraints. It is complete enough to let an agent invoke it correctly without further clarification.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description provides no contradicting or missing parameter detail.

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 verb ('列出') and a specific resource ('支持的城市列表'), and adds a concrete detail (~40 cities). This clearly distinguishes it from the many boss_* sibling tools, none of which serve this exact function.

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 description implies usage: use it when you need the list of supported cities. The availability bracket adds context about which roles and platforms can call it, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or include any exclusion criteria.

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