boss_digest

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

The description explicitly states '只读日报' (read-only daily report), which signals no data mutation. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose other behavioral traits such as caching, permission requirements, or data freshness. The disclosure is minimal but positive.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every element is relevant, and there is no wasted information. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and key feature (md output).

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?

Given the low complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the tool's purpose and output format options. However, it omits the role of the 'days_stale' parameter and does not describe the return structure for JSON output, which are minor gaps.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds context about md output being suitable for email/Feishu, but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. The schema already explains days_stale and format adequately.

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 clearly states the verb '汇总' (summarize) and the specific resources: new positions, pending follow-up conversations, and interview items. It distinguishes the tool as a read-only daily report, which is distinct from sibling tools like boss_chat, boss_stats, or boss_interviews.

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 implies usage for daily summaries, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparison to siblings like boss_chat_summary or boss_stats. The guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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