boss_crawl_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. '读取' clearly signals a read-only operation, and '持久化' indicates it reads stored data. Still, it does not mention side effects, output behavior, pagination limits, or whether any crawl state is affected. It provides basic transparency but not full coverage.

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 efficient sentence with action first and filters second. However, the trailing availability string is somewhat redundant and contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:', which adds noise. Overall it is compact but not perfectly clean.

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?

The schema covers all input parameters, and the description communicates the tool's purpose. But there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the returned data looks like or how results are structured. For a three-parameter read tool this is acceptable but could be more complete.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond restating the idea of filtering by page and detail status. No parameter meaning is materially enriched by the description.

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 clearly states the action ('读取' = read), the resource ('持久化 crawl 职位' = persisted crawl positions), and the available filters (page and detail status). This distinguishes it from siblings like boss_crawl_status and boss_crawl_shortlist, since it targets the stored job results themselves rather than crawl status or shortlist data.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to read persisted crawl results rather than crawl status or shortlists. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states conditions for choosing this tool over the many sibling crawl-related tools. Usage context is implicit, not explicit.

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