boss_history

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '查看' implies a read-only operation and the availability clause discloses a role/platform precondition that will cause failures for recruiters, which is genuinely useful. However, nothing is said about pagination, result volume, ordering, or whether any state is recorded when the history is read — gaps that matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short clause plus a bracketed availability tag — front-loaded and free of filler. The bracketed metadata is dense but machine-parseable rather than prose padding, so it earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the description is close to sufficient, and the availability gate is a valuable addition. What is missing is the scope of the returned history — which entity's browsing history, how far back, and whether results are truncated or paginated — which an agent needs in order to interpret the result.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither helps nor harms here.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair: '查看' (view) plus '浏览历史' (browsing history), which is a distinct capability not obviously duplicated by any sibling tool in the list. It stops short of naming what kind of history (e.g. viewed jobs vs. viewed resumes) or differentiating itself from neighbors like boss_watch_list or boss_shortlist_list, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 real usage conditions — only usable when roles=candidate and candidate_platforms=zhipin, and explicitly unavailable to recruiters (recruiter_platforms=-). That is useful gating information, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or what a caller should do instead when the gate fails.

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