boss_hr_applications

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only list view and adds availability constraints, but it omits behavioral details such as whether the list is scoped to the current recruiter, pagination behavior, or what the returned entries look like.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose before the availability note. The duplicated phrase '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor flaw, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 three-optional-parameter read tool, the purpose and filters are mostly sufficient for invocation. However, there is no output schema and no statement about the returned list structure or how pagination and filtering interact, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains page, job_id, and label_id. The prose description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 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 states a clear verb and resource: in recruiter mode, view the list of candidates' submitted applications. This unambiguously identifies the tool's function but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as boss_hr_candidates or boss_hr_jobs.

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 only contextual hint is 'recruiter mode' and the role/platform availability restriction, which tells who may use it but not when to choose it over alternatives. No exclusions or sibling differentiation is provided.

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