boss_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what it diagnoses, but fails to reveal side effects (e.g., read-only? requires network?), output format, or whether it modifies state. This is insufficient for a tool with no structured annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's function. No extraneous words 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 no-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the diagnostic areas but lacks detail on behavior (e.g., whether it requires internet, what it returns). It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to understand invocation side effects.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds context by listing diagnostic areas, which is sufficient.

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 tool's purpose: diagnosing local runtime environment, dependencies, login status, and network connectivity. It uses a specific verb '诊断' (diagnose) and lists distinct resources, distinguishing it from siblings like boss_ai_analyze_jd or boss_chat.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For a self-diagnostic tool, context like 'use before other operations' or 'when encountering errors' would be helpful, but it's absent.

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