boss_cities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result size (~40 cities) and the role/platform availability scope, which is genuinely useful context. It does not state that the operation is read-only or describe the return shape, so it falls short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the availability tag. Slightly marred by the redundant duplicated label '可用性: 可用性:' inside the bracket, but the total length is well within bounds.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, gives the expected result size, and states the availability scope. Only the read-only nature and the exact return shape are left implicit, which is a minor gap for a tool this simple.

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 the baseline is 4 — there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies a parameterless enumeration, and the schema (empty object, no required fields) is consistent with that.

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 ('列出' / list) and resource ('支持的城市' / supported cities) plus the approximate cardinality (~40), which tells an agent exactly what it will get. No sibling tool covers cities, so the resource itself differentiates it, though the description never explicitly contrasts with siblings.

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 ('roles=candidate, recruiter; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter') implicitly scopes when this tool is applicable, which is more than nothing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives — usage is only implied by the platform/role constraint.

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