boss_follow_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the selection logic (unread, overdue, interviews) and the verb 筛出 implies a read/filter operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or whether any state changes occur.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one efficient sentence, and the availability metadata is useful. It loses a point for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo, but is otherwise concise and well-structured.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and basic filtering criteria. It leaves open whether criteria are OR-combined, what the returned candidate list contains, and any pagination/limit behavior, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The single parameter days_stale is fully described in the schema with a default and meaning, and schema description coverage is 100%. The main description's mention of 超时未推进 echoes the parameter but adds no extra semantic detail beyond 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?

The description uses a specific verb 筛出 with a clear resource (候选项 needing priority follow-up) and lists three concrete criteria: unread, overdue/no-progress, and interviews. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for differentiation, but the purpose and scope are clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as boss_hr_candidates, boss_history, or boss_interviews. The availability note restricts it to candidate role and specific platforms, but that is a precondition rather than an alternative-selection rule.

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