boss_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavior: default redaction of job_id/security_id/boss_name, unconditional omission of platform marker, recruiter name and salary in HTML, and different return channels depending on whether output_file is supplied. It does not mention permissions beyond the role gate, rate limits, or whether a fetch/crawl is triggered as a side effect.

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-loads the core action and output formats, then layers redaction and return-shape details in a compact sequence. Dense but every clause (formats, URL reuse, redaction, envelope behavior) carries information; the bracketed availability tag is slightly clunky but useful.

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 essentials an agent needs: output formats, file-vs-envelope return behavior, and privacy defaults. Missing pieces are secondary (result caps, error behavior, auth beyond the role tag).

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 schema already documents all 14 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning for a few (url supplanting query, include_private scope, output_file changing the return envelope) but leaves the many filter parameters to 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?

Opens with a specific verb-plus-resource (导出搜索结果为 CSV / JSON / HTML 文件) and names the data source (BOSS 直聘搜索页), which clearly separates it from siblings like boss_search or boss_crawl_results. An agent can tell what it produces and in what formats without opening the schema.

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?

Establishes the usage context (exporting existing search results, reusing a search-page URL to carry filters) and states the availability constraint roles=candidate / platform=zhipin. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying when not to use it versus boss_search or boss_crawl_results.

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