Verify whether the current BOSS Zhipin session is logged in as a recruiter and ready for recruiter workflows; checks identity=1 without switching accounts.
招聘者模式：查看当前登录态是否处于招聘者侧。identity 为 1 才算就绪；profile_recruit 只回显，不切换身份 [可用性: 可用性: roles=recruiter; candidate_platforms=-; recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is an inspection operation ('查看'), that it does not switch identity, the readiness condition identity=1, and the recruiter role/platform scope. It stops short of covering failure behavior or a full response shape, but for a zero-parameter readiness check it provides meaningful behavioral context.
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 short and front-loads the purpose before the readiness condition and availability metadata. It loses a point for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' wording and bracketed metadata that slightly clutter the otherwise efficient sentence.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema readiness check, the description provides enough context to interpret identity=1 and the profile_recruit caveat. It does not describe the complete response or error cases, but it covers the essential behavior needed to call and understand the tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.
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 states a specific verb and resource: check whether the current login state is on the recruiter side, with identity=1 as the readiness condition. The availability restriction further narrows it to recruiter roles on zhipin-recruiter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as boss_me or boss_status.
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 availability line implies when this tool is usable: roles=recruiter and recruiter_platforms=zhipin-recruiter, with candidate_platforms=-. The note that profile_recruit only echoes and does not switch identity also warns against using it for identity switching. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.