boss_crawl_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully reveal the return surface (cursor, job count, progress, risk status), which is real behavioral context given there is no output schema, and it implies a read-only monitoring operation. It does not describe polling cadence, how progress or risk status are encoded, or what happens for an unknown or finished run_id.

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 listing exactly what is returned, followed by a bracketed availability tag. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 read tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields plus the role/platform availability gate covers what an agent needs to call it and interpret the result. Minor gaps remain around polling behavior and the meaning of risk status values, but nothing blocking.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already defines run_id as the crawl-run identifier returned by boss crawl start, so this is inherently well covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, but with full schema documentation the parameter is unambiguous as-is.

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 (读取/read) plus the concrete resource fields it exposes: crawl 页游标 (page cursor), 职位数 (job count), 详情进度 (detail progress) and 风险状态 (risk status). That is enough to separate it from result-oriented siblings like boss_crawl_results and boss_crawl_shortlist, but the description never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit.

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 only implied: the run_id schema note ('由 boss crawl start 返回') tells the agent this is a follow-up call after starting a crawl, and the availability tag restricts it to candidate role on the zhipin platform. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not statement, and no guidance on calling it repeatedly to poll progress versus using boss_crawl_results to fetch output.

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