boss_hr_chat

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results include unread counts and recent message summaries, which signals a read-oriented listing. It does not state whether viewing marks messages as read, how many items are returned per page, or any rate/permission limits beyond the platform tag.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single compact clause, with the availability tag appended as machine-readable metadata. There is no redundant phrasing, though the bracketed availability string is somewhat dense.

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 3-parameter, all-optional listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields (unread count, last message summary). Pagination volume and read-state side effects remain unstated, keeping it just short of 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 coverage is 100% and all three parameters (page, job_id, label_id) already carry descriptions, including the label_id enum meaning (0=all, 1=new greetings, 2=in-progress). The description adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 查看与候选人的沟通列表 (view the chat/conversation list with candidates), and adds what the result contains (unread counts, latest message summary). This differentiates it from message-level siblings like boss_hr_chatmsg and boss_chatmsg, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly-named boss_hr_last_messages.

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 '招聘者模式' prefix plus the availability tag (roles=recruiter, recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) clearly scope when the tool is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this conversation-list tool over siblings such as boss_hr_last_messages or boss_hr_chatmsg, so routing is implied rather than stated.

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