boss_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not explain that reset mutates/clears state, whether set requires prior get, permission requirements, or return behavior. The availability/roles line adds mild access context but no real behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded purpose clause plus a bracketed availability tag; nothing is wasted. Minor flaw: the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is sloppy, but overall the structure is tight.

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 config mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal: it does not state what config keys exist, what reset does, or what the calls return. Schema params are fully covered, but the behavioral and return gaps leave it only adequate.

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 schema already documents key, value (仅 set 时需要), and the action enum. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema, 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 pair of verbs (查看/修改 = view/modify) and resource (配置项 = config items), matching the list/get/set/reset enum. It is clear what the tool operates on, but it never names a sibling or clarifies how it differs from adjacent admin tools like boss_status, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The only scoping guidance is the availability tag (roles/platforms), which tells who may call it rather than when to prefer it over siblings. Usage is left to inference from the action enum.

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