boss_hr_reply

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'reply', which implies a write/message-sending action, but it does not mention delivery effects, whether the message is sent immediately, permissions required, or the return value.

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 core purpose is stated in one concise clause, and the availability metadata is useful. Minor deduplication issue ('可用性: 可用性:') slightly mars the structure, but the description is efficient and front-loaded.

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 core invocation details are present. However, without annotations or an output schema, the agent lacks guidance on expected results, how to obtain friend_id, or any constraints beyond the inline availability note. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%; both friend_id and message have clear Chinese descriptions in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('回复候选人消息' — reply to candidate messages) and the role context ('招聘者模式' — recruiter mode). This distinguishes it from candidate-facing tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like boss_ai_reply or boss_hr_chat.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes several messaging-related tools (boss_ai_reply, boss_hr_chat, boss_chat, boss_greet), but the description only implies 'recruiter mode reply' without stating when to pick this over those.

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