boss_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool views history and adds availability constraints, but it does not mention what the returned history contains, whether it is purely read-only in practice, pagination, or any side effects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, with availability constraints appended compactly. There is a minor duplication ('可用性: 可用性:') that slightly reduces polish, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description is nearly adequate, and the availability constraints add useful context. However, it does not clarify what 'browsing history' refers to or what the tool returns, and the lack of an output schema makes those gaps more noticeable.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to add beyond the schema. The schema coverage is effectively complete because the parameter list is empty, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: '查看浏览历史' means 'view browsing history.' It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's intent from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 availability block provides a concrete precondition: roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhilian,zhipin, and recruiter_platforms=-, which tells agents who may use it. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like boss_show, boss_stats, or boss_digest.

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