boss_hr_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with unread counts and recent message summaries, implying a read-only view, but it does not explicitly mention side effects (e.g., whether viewing marks messages as read) or pagination behavior. This is partial disclosure, not comprehensive transparency.

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 sentence with the main function front-loaded and availability appended, keeping it scannable. However, the duplicated '可用性:' prefix is a minor structural flaw that slightly reduces polish.

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?

In the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description gives core information about list content and recruiter availability, but it omits details on pagination, output format, and differentiation from related chat list/message tools. It is sufficient for basic invocation but not fully complete for confident tool selection.

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?

All three parameters (page, job_id, label_id) have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The label_id values are fully enumerated in the schema, and the description adds no additional parameter-level information.

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 '招聘者模式：查看与候选人的沟通列表（含未读数和最近消息摘要）' which clearly identifies the specific action (view), resource (communication list with candidates), and content (unread count and recent message summary). It is distinct from candidate-mode tools by explicitly labeling 'recruiter mode', and the resource and details differentiate it from sibling chat tools.

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 description provides implicit context through '招聘者模式' and availability constraints (roles=recruiter), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like boss_hr_chatmsg or boss_hr_last_messages. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer applicability.

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