boss_me

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. The verb 获取 (get) implies a safe read, and it lists the categories of data returned, but it does not state auth/permission requirements, rate limits, or any mutation-related caveats.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence naming the resource followed by a compact field list and a bracketed constraint tag. No wasted prose, though the doubled '可用性: 可用性:' is a minor structural blemish.

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 single-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate: the sections and the role gating are covered. But with no annotations and no output schema, it stops short of stating read-only semantics or auth requirements an agent might want.

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 coverage is 100% with a single enum parameter, so baseline is 3. The description earns more by mapping the enum values to concrete Chinese labels (基本信息=info, 简历=resume, 求职期望=expect, 投递记录=deliver), clarifying what each section actually returns beyond the bare enum.

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?

States a specific verb (获取/get) and a precise resource (当前登录用户信息 - current logged-in user's info), then enumerates the sub-resources it returns (基本信息、简历、求职期望、投递记录). An agent can tell what it retrieves, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer over it.

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 tag gives role gating (roles=candidate, recruiter_platforms=-), which implies when this tool is and isn't applicable. However there is no prose guidance and no named alternatives among the many boss_* siblings, so the routing signal is indirect.

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