boss_crawl_shortlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no BOSS request is made (local-only write), but says nothing about duplicate handling, idempotency, merge/overwrite behavior, or write-side effects of importing into the shortlist.

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 sentence with the core action first and the no-BOSS qualifier second; the availability tag is compact. No wasted prose.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more for a 5-parameter write tool. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but the description omits what the import produces or how the shortlist is affected, leaving the agent without return/effect context.

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 all five parameters (all/selectors mutual exclusion, run_id, note, tags). The description only loosely references the selector source, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: importing selectors from crawl results into the local shortlist, distinguishing it from boss_shortlist_add (manual add) and boss_crawl_results (fetch). However, it does not explicitly name the alternative sibling tools, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

Usage context is implied: it's the bridge between boss_crawl_results and boss_shortlist_*, and '不请求 BOSS' signals a local, no-network operation. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., boss_shortlist_add for single/manual entries).

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