boss_digest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the tool is read-only ('只读日报') and documents the md output option, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, or return format details. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence states the purpose, followed by a bracketed availability note. The note contains a redundant '可用性: 可用性:' but overall the description is appropriately sized and focused.

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 read-only composite report with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives purpose, format, and availability. It lacks return value details and alternative-tool guidance, leaving gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb ('汇总' / summarize) and enumerates the resources: new jobs, follow-up conversations, and interview items as a read-only daily report. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like boss_stats or boss_pipeline, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

Provides clear context via the availability tag (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin) and the scenario '支持 md 输出便于邮件/飞书直发'. It does not name when-not or alternative tools, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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