boss_config

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses that the tool can both view and modify config (via actions list/get/set/reset), implying destructive potential, but does not warn about side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The availability info is useful but insufficient.

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 to the point, but the availability block has messy formatting (repeated '可用性:'). Still, it's not verbose and front-loads the purpose.

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-modifying tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks crucial context such as valid config keys, acceptable values, and return format. The minimal info is insufficient for confident use.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but does not contradict it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states '查看和修改配置项' (view and modify configuration items), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like boss_search or boss_detail, none of which manage config.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The availability block mentions roles and platforms, but does not explain usage context or when to choose this over other tools.

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