boss_greet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and prerequisites; it does not disclose whether this sends a message, creates a chat, has side effects, requires special permissions, or is subject to rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs an action.

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 description is very short and front-loaded, with the action stated first and availability appended. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor formatting blemish but does not meaningfully 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 simple two-parameter action, the core purpose and inputs are covered, and the availability block adds useful platform/role context. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral effects and does not help the agent distinguish this tool from closely related siblings, leaving the definition minimally sufficient rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both security_id and job_id already described as IDs. The description only echoes that both are needed, which adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema and the required field list. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a clear action ('greet the recruiter') and a specific resource, and it names the two required IDs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boss_batch_greet, but the verb and object are unambiguous enough for an agent to identify its basic purpose.

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 provides practical context: it is for candidate roles and limited to zhilian and zhipin platforms, and it notes required IDs. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives such as boss_batch_greet or boss_apply, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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