boss_favorites_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and explicitly states '不落库' (not persisted), signaling a preview-only operation with no database side effects. This is valuable transparency, though it does not detail all possible side effects or response behavior.

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 description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and scope and includes the important non-persistence note. The duplicated '可用性:' inside the availability bracket is a minor structural blemish but not confusing enough to lower the score further.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential action and side-effect profile. However, it leaves the meaning of '有效状态' vague and does not describe what the agent should expect in the response, so an agent must infer the return value.

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% and the single optional 'page' parameter is already documented as '页码'. The description adds no extra meaning about pagination or parameter format, so it defaults to the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb '预览' with a specific resource ('BOSS 职位收藏单页及有效状态'), clearly identifying this as a favorites-list preview tool. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like boss_shortlist_list, boss_watch_list, and boss_resume_list, even without naming them explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_shortlist_list or boss_watch_list. It only provides availability constraints for candidate roles/platforms, which is a restriction, not a usage criterion.

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