boss_hr_applications

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

No annotations are available, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'view list', implying a read operation, but does not confirm read-only status, mention permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. There is no wordiness or unnecessary information, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 list view tool with three parameters, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks details about return values (e.g., fields in the list), pagination behavior, or sorting, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides the necessary parameter details.

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 verb '查看' (view) and resource '候选人投递申请列表' (candidate application list), specifying it is for recruiter mode. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like boss_hr_candidates (candidates list) and boss_hr_jobs (jobs list).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when it should not be used or list any prerequisites. Sibling tools exist for similar purposes, but no differentiation is offered.

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