boss_interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Beyond the availability constraint it says nothing about read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or result volume for what is presumably a listing endpoint. The verb 查看 implies a read, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.

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?

A single short sentence front-loads the purpose, with scoping metadata in brackets. The bracketed prefix repeats '可用性:' twice, which is a minor structural defect, but overall there is no wasted prose.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns at a high level and who may call it. However, nothing is said about what an interview invitation entry contains or how results are ordered or bounded, leaving the agent to discover the shape at call time.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (查看面试邀请列表 = view interview invitation list), which is unambiguous on its own. The availability tag adds platform/role scoping (candidate role, zhipin platform), but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from any named sibling such as boss_hr_applications.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The bracketed availability constraint (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-) does imply the caller context in which the tool is valid, which is meaningful routing information, but it stops short of guidance.

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