boss_hr_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'online/offline operations' which are mutations, but does not clarify if these actions are destructive, require specific permissions, or have side effects. The description lacks transparency about read/write behavior beyond the schema.

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 very concise, consisting of a single sentence. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it could include more detail without becoming unreasonably long, such as noting the job_id requirement for mutations.

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 and the fact that the tool includes mutation operations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the list returns (e.g., pagination, fields), nor any prerequisites or post-conditions for online/offline actions. This lack of context may lead to incorrect invocations.

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 adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not provide examples or clarify the enum values. This is adequate but not helpful.

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 is for viewing job lists and performing online/offline operations. It identifies the resource (jobs) and actions (list, online, offline). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like boss_detail which might also deal with jobs.

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 implies usage for list viewing and status changes, but does not specify when to avoid this tool, such as for single job details (boss_detail) or other operations. It also omits that job_id is required for online/offline actions, though the schema includes this constraint.

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