boss_interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must inform behavioral traits. It only states the function and availability, omitting whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. It does not explain what the list contains or how it behaves (e.g., ordering, pagination).

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical availability note. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the bracket formatting is slightly cluttered. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description should hint at what the return value contains (e.g., interview details). It only says 'list', leaving the output completely unspecified for a simple tool that likely returns structured data.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the tool's purpose and availability, which is sufficient given no input fields.

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 ('查看面试邀请列表' - view interview invitation list) and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for viewing interview invitations, not for AI prep, history, or other functions.

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 description includes availability constraints (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin), which tells when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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