boss_cities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the approximate return size and the roles/platforms for which the tool is available, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence plus the availability note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor duplication in the availability field (typo) but still clear and efficient.

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 simple parameterless listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose and constraints. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., array of strings, objects), which would be helpful given no output schema. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds nothing about parameters, but with no parameters, the baseline is 4 per the guidelines. The description is sufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '列出支持的城市列表' (list supported cities) with an approximate count of 40. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes well from sibling tools that focus on job-related actions like searching or managing resumes.

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 includes availability information (roles and platforms), which imposes constraints on when the tool can be used, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no direct sibling tools for listing cities, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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