boss_greet

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for what is clearly an outbound action that sends a message to a third party. It never states whether the greeting consumes a daily quota, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the candidate has already greeted that job, or what error states look like. The only behavioral hint is the availability gate, which is insufficient for a mutating outreach 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?

Two short sentences plus an availability tag, with the action front-loaded. The middle sentence restates the schema's required list verbatim, which is mild redundancy but not enough to harm readability.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the required inputs, and platform/role availability. It is still missing side-effect and failure-mode information that an agent needs before triggering outbound contact, and it does not point to sibling alternatives.

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%: job_id is documented as the encrypt_job_id and security_id as the position's security_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that both are required, adding no format, sourcing, or derivation guidance (e.g., where security_id comes from). 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 concrete verb+resource: greeting a recruiter ('向招聘者打招呼'), which is immediately distinguishable from generic chat or search tools. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as boss_hr_greet (recruiter-side) or boss_batch_greet (batch variant), leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 block gives a real usage gate: only usable when roles=candidate, only on candidate_platforms=zhipin, and explicitly unavailable to recruiter platforms. That is a genuine when-to-use condition. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., boss_batch_greet for multiple jobs), so no explicit when-not guidance.

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