boss_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and provides meaningful behavioral detail: it defaults to masking job_id/security_id/boss_name and always omits platform identifiers, recruiter names, and salaries from HTML output. This goes well beyond what the schema alone communicates, though it does not cover side effects or file-write behavior in depth.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence, followed by important privacy behavior and availability metadata. Minor duplication in the availability string ('可用性: 可用性') prevents a perfect structure score, but overall it is compact and 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, the description plus detailed parameter schema is mostly complete: it explains output formats, URL reuse, privacy defaults, and availability. A little more detail about expected output or error conditions would help, but the schema already documents output_file/stdout behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful cross-parameter context by explaining that a search-page URL can reuse filters and that masking behavior is controlled by include_private. This adds value beyond individual schema parameter descriptions.

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: 'export search results' to CSV/JSON/HTML files. It also adds a distinctive capability, reusing BOSS Zhipin search page URLs for filters, which separates it from sibling bosses that search, crawl, or manage resumes.

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 gives clear context: use when exporting search results to files, with optional URL-based filter reuse. It also includes availability constraints for roles and platforms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is clear.

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