boss_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'view browsing history' with no mention of side effects, permissions, data freshness, or any constraints. This is a critical gap for a state-reading 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?

The description is extremely concise, fitting in a single phrase. While front-loaded and efficient, it sacrifices important details, making it feel under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of history items, structure). It fails to do so, leaving the agent without context for interpreting results. The availability info is helpful but insufficient for completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. According to the guidelines, when no parameters exist, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 '查看浏览历史' clearly states the tool's action (view) and resource (browsing history), making its purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, as no other tool explicitly handles history. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of browsing history (e.g., job views, resume views).

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 includes availability information for roles and platforms (candidate only, specific platforms), which provides some context for when to use. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., boss_show for individual items), nor does it explain the tool's scope or limitations.

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