boss_history

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "查看" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about scope, ordering, pagination, or what window of history is returned, leaving an agent to guess at the result set.

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 line with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted prose. It loses a point for the duplicated label "可用性: 可用性:" and a trailing"-" placeholder, which are careless artifacts rather than useful content.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least indicate what the returned history contains (jobs viewed? candidates?) and roughly how much. The availability constraint is a useful addition, but the return-content gap keeps it merely adequate.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is an empty object with no properties to document. Baseline 4 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 specific verb+resource ("查看浏览历史" / view browsing history), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. However, it offers no differentiation from the many other list/history-shaped siblings (boss_crawl_results, boss_chatmsg, boss_stats), so the agent must infer scope from the name alone.

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 precondition (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin), which tells the agent when the tool is callable. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or say when-not to use this one, so guidance remains implicit.

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