boss_hr_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral constraint the schema cannot express — the required recruiter role and zhipin-recruiter platform — which is meaningful context. But it says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, ordering, or whether viewing applications has side effects (e.g. marking them read), leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two compact segments: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by a terse availability tag. There is no filler. The bracketed metadata is dense but readable and earns its place by carrying the role/platform gating that no structured field supplies.

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?

This is a low-complexity paginated list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema to explain. The description covers what it returns at a high level and, importantly, the access prerequisite. Only the lack of differentiation from sibling candidate-listing tools keeps it from being complete.

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%, with page, job_id, and label_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema — it does not clarify what an '申请列表' entry contains or how label_id's filter values interact with job_id.

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 names a specific verb ('查看' / view) and a specific resource ('候选人投递申请列表' / list of candidate applications) and scopes it to recruiter mode. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as boss_hr_candidates or boss_hr_recommendations, which likely also list candidates, so it falls short of a 5.

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 ('roles=recruiter; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter') gives a real prerequisite that tells the agent when this tool is callable. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over the many sibling list tools (boss_hr_candidates, boss_hr_recommendations, boss_hr_jobs), so the usage is only implied rather than directed.

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