boss_crawl_shortlist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add useful behavioral context: it explicitly states no BOSS request is made and that the operation is local. However, it does not disclose side effects such as duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, or whether existing shortlist entries are modified, which would matter for a data-import tool.

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 main instruction is a single concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, source, destination, and offline behavior. The availability metadata is useful, though the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor formatting blemish.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description establishes the key workflow dependency on crawl results and clarifies the local-only behavior. However, it does not describe what the tool returns on success or failure, which leaves a gap for an agent invoking the tool without an output schema.

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 thoroughly. The description adds contextual linkage by mentioning that selectors come from boss_crawl_results and the destination is the local shortlist, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '将 crawl results 返回的 selector 导入本地 shortlist' (import selectors returned by crawl results into the local shortlist). It also adds a distinguishing behavioral marker, '不请求 BOSS' (does not request BOSS), which helps differentiate it from BOSS-side tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 clear context: this tool is used after a crawl run, to import selectors into a local shortlist rather than making a BOSS API call. It does not explicitly list alternatives or 'when not to use' conditions, but the source/destination relationship and the '不请求 BOSS' exclusion make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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