boss_hr_jobs

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

The description lists the three actions (list, online, offline) but does not disclose that online/offline are destructive mutations with potential impact on job status. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency but only provides basic action names.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it contains a typo with repeated '可用性: 可用性:' and includes availability info that could be separate. Still, it efficiently conveys the tool's role.

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?

Given no output schema, the description does not explain return values for list or success responses for online/offline. It covers the basic actions but lacks details on pagination, result format, or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context: '操作类型' for action and 'online/offline时必填' for job_id, repeating schema info. It does not fully compensate for missing details like expected values beyond the enum.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: viewing job list or performing online/offline operations in recruiter mode. It uses specific verbs ('查看', '执行') and resource ('职位列表', '上线/下线操作'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like boss_hr_jobs_detail which focuses on individual job details.

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 the tool's context (recruiter mode) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like boss_search or boss_hr_jobs_detail. The action parameter enum implicitly suggests usage, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are stated.

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