boss_clean

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does very little with it. It never states that files are permanently deleted, what exactly is considered 'expired', whether the operation is reversible, or whether it can affect active sessions/data; the only safety affordance (dry_run) is visible solely through the schema.

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 availability gate appended; nothing is padded and the action is front-loaded. The bracketed key=value notation is terse but readable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no indication of what gets removed or what the result looks like, the description is thin. An agent could invoke it but could not predict or explain the consequences of doing so.

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?

Both parameters (all, dry_run) are fully documented in the schema with defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no further meaning. Baseline 3 applies given 100% schema description coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource – cleaning expired cache and temporary files – which is unambiguous and distinguishable from every sibling tool (none of which is a maintenance/cleanup command). It lacks any statement of scope or effect, but the core action is clear.

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 block states availability constraints (roles=candidate/recruiter, platform=zhipin/zhipin-recruiter), which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no guidance on when cleanup is warranted, how it differs from boss_doctor or boss_status, or any warning about running it.

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