boss_hr_chatmsg

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the role and platform gating, but says nothing about read-only semantics, pagination direction, or result ordering beyond what the max_msg_id parameter name implies.

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?

A single compact sentence with the role mode front-loaded and the availability constraint bracketed at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed metadata is dense and slightly cryptic.

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 simple read-only history fetch with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential access constraint. Only the paging behavior and return shape are left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning about friend_id sourcing, count limits, or how max_msg_id interacts with paging, 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 and resource ('查看与指定候选人的聊天消息历史') and prefixes it with '招聘者模式', which separates it from the candidate-side sibling boss_chatmsg. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the role qualifier makes the distinction inferable.

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 availability clause (roles=recruiter, recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter) tells the agent when the tool is callable, which is real guidance. However, it never contrasts with boss_hr_chat, boss_hr_last_messages, or boss_chatmsg, so the agent must infer which chat-reading tool to pick.

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