boss_crawl_shortlist

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that no BOSS request is made, meaning this is a local-only write. It does not disclose whether existing shortlist entries are overwritten, whether duplicates are skipped, what happens to stale selectors, or what the call returns after import.

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 action and the no-network trait are front-loaded in one sentence, which is efficient. The appended availability bracket is terse and machine-formatted but earns its place as a hard eligibility gate.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and local-only behavior but leaves the post-import result undefined. An agent still cannot tell whether the call reports how many positions were added, skipped, or rejected.

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 all five parameters, including the all/selectors mutual exclusion and the run_id provenance, are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that selectors originate from crawl results and adds no format, sizing, or precedence guidance 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 names a specific verb and resource ('将 crawl results 返回的 selector 导入本地 shortlist') and adds a distinguishing trait ('不请求 BOSS'), so the agent knows this is a purely local import from crawl output rather than a fresh fetch. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as boss_shortlist_add or boss_crawl_results, leaving the boundary to be inferred.

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 is implied through the referenced workflow (selectors come from boss_crawl_results, run_id from boss crawl start), and the availability bracket states a when-not condition for recruiter roles. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over boss_shortlist_add or what to do when a run has no importable positions, so the agent must infer the choice.

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