boss_me

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of data exposed (profile, resume, job expectations, application records) and the role/platform prerequisite, which is useful auth context. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly, nor behavior when `section` is omitted, nor return shape or size.

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?

One sentence plus a compact availability tag; the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. The availability tag is dense but is structured as a bracketed constraint rather than prose, which keeps it scannable. Slight deduction for the terse tag format being less readable than plain language.

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 read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what data comes back, the four section domains, and the role/platform prerequisite. The main omission is default behavior when `section` is absent. Given low complexity, this is close to complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter has an enum with a description, so the schema already does the work. The description does add a loose mapping by naming the four data domains in the parenthetical, but it does not clarify default behavior or whether multiple sections can be requested. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('获取当前登录用户信息') and enumerates the four data domains returned (基本信息、简历、求职期望、投递记录), which maps directly onto the `section` enum. The role gating line (roles=candidate; recruiter_platforms=-) implicitly separates it from the recruiter-side sibling boss_hr_whoami, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 bracketed availability clause gives a real usage constraint: only for candidate role on the zhipin platform, not recruiters. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, there is no guidance on when to call this versus boss_show or boss_resume_show, and no hint about which `section` value to choose or what happens if it is omitted.

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