boss_clean

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It names the targets (expired cache, temp files) but does not disclose whether deletion is irreversible, what 'expired' means, permission requirements, or any safety/rate considerations for a destructive operation.

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 description is a single front-loaded clause with no wasted words. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' prefix in the metadata block is sloppy but the actual purpose statement is appropriately terse.

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 destructive maintenance tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits irreversibility, scope of cleanup, and what a run returns or affects. An agent cannot confidently decide whether to invoke it with 'all' or rely on 'dry_run' first.

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 two parameters ('all' = 全量清理, 'dry_run' = 仅预览不删除) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these flags interact or default behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (清理/clean) and resource (过期缓存和临时文件/expired cache and temp files), which is clear enough to understand the operation. No sibling tools perform cleanup, so differentiation is implicitly obvious, but the description never frames how it relates to the maintenance/sibling tools.

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 only scoping hint is the bracketed availability metadata (roles=candidate, recruiter; platform=zhipin), which limits audience but is not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to run this, whether it is safe to run routinely, or what alternatives exist.

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