boss_hr_last_messages

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden of disclosure. It does establish the recruiter-only role and platform scope, which is real context, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it consumes pagination from the visible chat list, or whether it marks conversations as read.

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?

It is a single front-loaded clause with the operating mode stated first, followed by a compact availability bracket. Nothing is redundant, though the bracketed metadata is terse to the point of being almost cryptic.

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 4-parameter, all-optional listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers availability but not what the message summary contains or how pagination terminates. It is adequate to attempt a call but leaves the agent guessing about the returned shape and about when to prefer a sibling.

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%; every parameter (page, job_id, label_id, friend_ids) is documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior when friend_ids is omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource: '批量查看候选人最近消息摘要' (batch-view candidate recent message summaries) in recruiter mode. That is far more than the tool name alone conveys. However, it never distinguishes this from similarly named siblings such as boss_chat_summary, boss_hr_chatmsg, or boss_hr_chat, so the agent must infer which summary/chat tool to use.

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 bracketed availability block ('roles=recruiter; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter') is a genuine precondition and useful for ruling the tool in or out. But there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement and no routing to alternatives for single-conversation message history or full chat content, so selection remains implied.

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