boss_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'view and modify' and lists some configuration availability. It does not explain side effects of set/reset, whether changes are persistent, permission requirements, or what the tool returns.

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 short and front-loaded, but it contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo and mixes an availability list into the main description, making it slightly messy. It is compact yet not optimally structured.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does not cover return values, behavioral side effects, or when to choose this tool. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description leaves too much about operational behavior to inference for a config-mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing possible configuration domains and values (roles, candidate_platforms, recruiter_platforms), which helps an agent understand what keys look like beyond the generic schema labels.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '查看和修改配置项' (view and modify configuration items), and the action enum (list/get/set/reset) reinforces the intended scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the configuration focus is unique enough among the boss_* 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The bracketed availability list reads as domain/configuration context rather than usage conditions, and no exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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