boss_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the four areas it inspects, but says nothing about whether it mutates state, whether it requires prior authentication, or what output the caller should expect from a diagnostic run.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in a single compact sentence. The bracketed availability suffix is a bit noisy and contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' token, but overall it is tightly sized with no wasted prose.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description covers the essential scope of what gets checked and who may run it. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on whether it is read-only would round it out.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (诊断/diagnose) and enumerates the concrete resources it inspects: local runtime environment, dependencies, login state, and network connectivity. This is clearly distinct from the many action-oriented siblings (apply, greet, chat), though it does not explicitly name a sibling like boss_status as an alternative.

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 bracketed availability line (roles=candidate, recruiter; platforms=zhipin) gives implied context about who can use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this and any alternative diagnostic/status tool.

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