boss_hr_jobs_detail

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

Without annotations, the description indicates the tool retrieves complete job details, including postDescription. This implies a read-only operation. While not fully detailing every aspect, it sufficiently conveys the core behavior for a simple retrieval tool.

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 and an availability tag. However, there is a minor typo (double '可用性:'), and no structured formatting, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 the tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers its purpose and output scope ('complete details'). The availability info adds necessary context. Some detail about the output fields beyond postDescription could enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema describes the single parameter enc_job_id, and the description adds that the tool returns complete details including postDescription, providing context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, this offsets the baseline.

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 function: viewing complete details of a specified job in recruiter mode, including the postDescription. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boss_detail (likely for candidate mode) and boss_hr_jobs (which lists jobs). The inclusion of availability info further clarifies the target user.

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 usage context by specifying 'recruiter mode' and availability constraints (roles, platforms). This helps the agent determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, which would strengthen the guidance.

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