boss_crawl_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It implies a passive read by listing the returned signals, but never states it is read-only, side-effect-free, or what environment (run state) is required; for a simple status read the omission is mild but real.

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 enumerating the read outputs, followed by a compact availability tag. Slightly marred by the redundant '可用性: 可用性:' duplication but otherwise waste-free.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the description conveys the salient return fields (cursor, counts, progress, risk), which is adequate. It stops short of explaining progress units, risk-state meaning, or error behavior for an invalid/missing run.

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%, and run_id is already documented as the crawl run identifier returned by boss crawl start. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (读取/read) and enumerates the resource facets it returns: crawl page cursor, job count, detail progress, and risk state. This distinguishes it reasonably from listing siblings like boss_crawl_results, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The availability tag (roles=candidate, platforms=zhipin) is a precondition but does not tell the agent when this status check is warranted versus e.g. boss_status or boss_crawl_results.

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