boss_hr_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals that online/offline operations change job status, but it does not disclose effects on job visibility, reversibility, prerequisites, or any side effects beyond the operation names. The list behavior also lacks detail about scope, pagination, or what data is returned.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before the availability bracket. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor typo that reduces polish, but the overall structure wastes very few words.

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 two-parameter tool, the description plus schema is mostly adequate to invoke it correctly. However, there is no output schema and no description of what the list action returns, what fields are visible, or how status changes are reflected, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent relying on this definition.

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%, with both parameters described: action is an enum with default 'list', and job_id is documented as required for online/offline. The description adds little beyond repeating the action types, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: viewing a job list or performing online/offline operations in recruiter mode. It distinguishes itself from the sibling boss_hr_jobs_detail by focusing on list and status changes rather than details, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_hr_jobs_detail, boss_hr_applications, or other recruiter-mode tools. The availability note mentions recruiter roles and platform, but that is access information, not use-case guidance. The action enum implies some usage contexts but is not expanded into when/why choices.

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