boss_hr_greet

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool requires explicit operator approval and does not send read receipts, which are meaningful side-effect details beyond the schema's 'yes' field. It could mention irreversibility or response behavior, but it is not silent.

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 compact single sentence with the core action and key caveats front-loaded. The availability suffix is structured but contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo, which 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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, approval requirement, and read-receipt behavior, and the schema covers all parameters. However, it does not mention success/failure behavior, return values, or when to prefer sibling greet tools, so it is not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented inline (e.g., yes, dry_run, geek_id). The description adds only the approval-gate context already mirrored by the 'yes' parameter, so no substantial extra parameter semantics are provided.

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 names a specific action ('发送首次招呼' / send initial greeting) and resource ('招聘者模式' / recruiter mode, single-session establishment). It implies distinction from sibling tools like boss_batch_greet or boss_hr_reply via '单次' and '首次', though it does not name alternatives 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?

It gives clear context: recruiter mode, first greeting, single session, and a hard precondition ('需操作者明确批准'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the '首次' and '单次' framing strongly implies it is not for batch greetings or replies.

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