boss_hr_download_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses two meaningful non-obvious behaviors: it will not automatically agree to access and will not overwrite existing files. It also limits scope to already-allowed received attachments. It could add error/return behavior, but the key side-effect guarantees are present.

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 instruction is one concise sentence with constraints front-loaded before the availability bracket. It loses a point for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo and for embedding availability in prose rather than cleaner structured metadata.

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 tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, this is largely complete: it states the mode, target, preconditions, and side-effect constraints. It does not describe result/error shape, but that is a minor gap given the straightforward file-download behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add material parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; '已收到' and '附件简历' loosely echo the message_id and attachment concepts already documented. No parameter semantics gap to compensate for.

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?

Description states a specific action ('下载指定候选人已收到且允许访问的附件简历' — download a specified candidate's received and accessible attachment resume) with clear scope and constraints. It differentiates from related siblings such as boss_hr_resume and boss_hr_accept_resume by explicitly noting it only downloads already-permitted attachments and does not auto-consent.

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?

Provides clear context: recruiter mode, only for received/accessible attachments, and explicitly says it does not automatically consent or overwrite files, implying when it is not appropriate. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, so it misses the highest bar but is not vague.

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