boss_digest

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose the important behavioral traits: the operation is read-only (只读), it draws from three data domains, and md output is intended for direct email/Feishu delivery. It does not say whether results are scoped to the calling candidate account, how large the digest is, or whether empty sections are omitted.

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?

One dense sentence with the payload stated first, followed by the output-format rationale and a compact bracketed availability tag. No filler or repetition, though the availability bracket is dense enough to slow parsing slightly.

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?

All three parameters are optional with 100% schema coverage and there is no output schema, so the description only needs to frame what comes back — which it does at section level. It stops short of describing the digest's shape (counts vs. lists), so an agent cannot predict response structure or size before calling.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by explaining why format=md matters (邮件/飞书直发, i.e. paste-ready delivery), which contextualizes the enum beyond the schema's '输出格式'. It adds nothing about output or days_stale that the schema's own descriptions do not already say.

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 (汇总 / aggregate) and a specific artifact (只读日报 — a read-only daily digest) and enumerates its three constituent sections: new jobs, follow-up-pending conversations, and interview items. This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like boss_follow_up, boss_interviews, and boss_stats, even though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the combined daily roll-up, and the bracketed availability gate (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiters unsupported) is genuinely useful eligibility information. However, there is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing against boss_follow_up, boss_stats, or boss_chat_summary, and no mention of when a digest is inappropriate.

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