boss_digest

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 只读 (read-only), indicating no mutation, and discloses the available roles/platforms as well as md output support. This is adequate for a non-destructive digest tool, though it does not mention edge cases such as empty data or default time-window behavior.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, followed by a compact availability suffix. It loses a point because the availability label is duplicated: 可用性: 可用性:.

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 simple read-only digest tool with three optional and fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, read-only nature, output format, and availability. It lacks explicit sibling-routing guidance, but the schema completes the remaining invocation details.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (format, output, days_stale) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the rationale that md output is convenient for email/Feishu, which slightly enriches the format parameter but does not add meaning to output or days_stale. 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?

The description uses a specific verb, 汇总 (summarize), and names the exact resource scope: newly added positions, pending follow-up conversations, and interview items. It also calls itself a read-only daily report, which clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools focused on individual actions like apply, chat, or export.

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 clearly implies use for a daily overview digest and includes an explicit availability constraint: roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhilian/zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-. It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the 'read-only daily report' wording provides enough context for when this tool is appropriate.

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