boss_interviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. '查看...列表' implies a read operation, and the availability tag adds scope, but there is no mention of pagination, authentication, return contents, or rate limits.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact availability tag. There is little wasted wording, though the bracketed availability syntax is terse rather than explanatory.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is adequate at a high level. Without an output schema, though, it does not describe what the list contains or whether results are paginated, which leaves 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 verb and resource: '查看面试邀请列表' (view interview invitation list). The availability tag distinguishes it from recruiter-side tools via recruiter_platforms=-, but it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

Availability constraints (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-) tell when the tool is usable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives or explanation of what to use for recruiter views or other platforms.

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