boss_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the access constraints (roles and platform variants) plus the approximate list size and the '全国' sentinel. It does not say whether the list is static or live, whether it depends on the caller's config, or what the entries look like.

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 compact line: purpose first, then count and special case, then the availability constraint in a bracketed suffix. Dense but front-loaded, with no filler.

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 trivial zero-parameter list tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say what the returned list contains (city names only, or name/id pairs) and that those values feed into search filters. As written, an agent knows what the tool is but not exactly what it gets back.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The mention of the '全国' pseudo-city is a useful hint about the value domain even without parameters.

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: '列出支持的城市列表' (list supported cities), and adds concrete scope detail — roughly 44 entries including the special '全国' (nationwide) option. No sibling tool offers a city list, so no disambiguation is needed, but it stops short of saying what the entries are used for.

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 tag tells the agent which roles and platforms may call it (candidate/recruiter; zhipin / zhipin-recruiter), which is real usage gating. However, it never says when to call this versus other tools — e.g. that it should be used to discover valid city values before calling boss_search or boss_recommend.

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