boss_hr_chatmsg

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. '查看' clearly implies a read-only history view, but the description does not explicitly address side effects, pagination behavior, or response contents. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral details to inference.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence followed by compact availability metadata. The duplicated '可用性:' label is a minor flaw, but the overall size is appropriate and there is no unnecessary exposition.

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 relatively simple read-historical-chat tool, the description plus complete schema covers the essential use case: recruiter mode, target candidate, message count, and paging. There is no output schema, but the return type (chat message history) is implied by the description.

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 documents friend_id, count, and max_msg_id. The description adds little semantic detail beyond restating the candidate scope ('指定候选人'), so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (查看/view) and a specific resource (chat message history with a specified candidate), and it frames the tool as recruiter-mode. It distinguishes itself from candidate-side siblings through the 招聘者模式 scope, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 clear context by declaring availability: roles=recruiter and recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter. This tells the agent when the tool is intended to be used, but it does not explicitly name candidate-side alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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