boss_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that job_id/security_id/boss_name are redacted by default and that HTML always omits platform identifier, recruiter name, and salary, plus availability limits. It omits file-writing side effects (overwrite behavior), permission/auth needs, and rate limits, which matters for a tool that writes output files.

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 core purpose, format options, URL reuse, and redaction behavior are front-loaded in a compact multi-sentence block. The trailing availability string is slightly redundant ('可用性: 可用性:') but overall it is efficient.

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 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important redaction/format behavior but leaves return-shape and file-output semantics to the parameter descriptions (e.g., output_file/stdout). Adequate but there are clear gaps around side effects and the result envelope.

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 14 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description only adds the default-redaction and HTML-omission behavior, which partly overlaps the include_private parameter's own description, so it adds marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it exports search results as CSV/JSON/HTML files, and clarifies that BOSS Zhipin search-page URLs reuse the web filter conditions. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like boss_search or boss_clean, though it never names a specific sibling to differentiate against.

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?

It implies the tool is for exporting search results and that a search-page URL can supply filters, plus an availability constraint (roles=candidate; zhipin). However, it never says when to choose this over boss_search/boss_crawl_results, nor any explicit exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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