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 behavioral burden. It discloses the selection criteria (unread, stale, interview), which is useful, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what permissions/auth are needed beyond the role tag, or what the result looks like. For a mutation-free filter tool this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the purpose before the bracketed availability metadata. It is appropriately sized, though the availability tag contains a duplicated fragment ('可用性: 可用性:'), a minor structural blemish.

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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly complete on purpose but leaves the agent without usage routing, safety profile, or return-format expectations. Adequate as a minimum viable definition but with clear gaps.

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%: days_stale is fully documented in the schema as the staleness threshold. The description adds no syntax, format, or default information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific action (筛出/filter out) on a specific resource (候选项 needing follow-up) and enumerates the three qualifying criteria (未读/unread, 超时未推进/stale, 面试/interview). This lets an agent distinguish it reasonably well from generic pipeline or list siblings. However, it never explicitly names which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 lists what gets filtered but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g. boss_pipeline or boss_digest). The availability tag (roles=candidate) is an access constraint, not usage guidance. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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