boss_follow_up

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only filtered listing and defines the three qualifying conditions, but says nothing about ordering, result volume, pagination, or whether stale-day logic interacts with interview criteria. That leaves real behavioral gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

One compact sentence states the purpose and the criteria, followed by a bracketed availability tag. Nothing is redundant and the core function is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say something about what a candidate entry contains or how many are returned; it does not. The input side is complete thanks to full schema coverage, but the return-side picture is left entirely to inference.

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%, with days_stale fully documented including its default of 3, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of '超时未推进' hints at the staleness concept but adds no syntax, unit, or interaction detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('筛出' / filter out) and names the resource explicitly ('候选项' / candidates) plus the three inclusion criteria (unread, stale, interview). An agent can grasp the function without opening the schema. It stops short of differentiating from nearby siblings such as boss_pipeline or boss_hr_last_messages, which could also surface follow-up candidates.

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 gives concrete scoping: roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-, which tells the agent both who this is for and where it does not apply. It does not, however, name an alternative tool or state an explicit when-not condition beyond the platform/role gating.

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