boss_interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. "查看" (view) conveys a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not mention return format, pagination, or whether any side effects occur beyond listing.

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 definition is very short and front-loads the core meaning, but the bracket metadata contains a duplicated prefix: "可用性: 可用性:". This repetition and the awkward embedded constraints prevent a higher structural score.

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/list tool, the role and platform availability are essential invocation context and are present. However, there is no output schema and no description of what an interview invitation entry contains, leaving return semantics unspecified.

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 input schema has zero properties and full coverage by virtue of being empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed 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 Chinese description "查看面试邀请列表" clearly states a specific verb and resource: viewing a list of interview invitations. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like resume lists or chat tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 metadata provides explicit role and platform context: roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhilian and zhipin, and recruiter_platforms=-. This implies when the tool is usable, but it does not name alternative tools or conditions for choosing among the many sibling list/read tools.

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