boss_me

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. The verb '获取' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the availability line adds role/platform restrictions. It does not cover edge cases like empty records, login/auth failures, or pagination, but for a simple getter of the current user's own data this is reasonable.

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 core sentence is concise and front-loaded, with the available sections listed compactly. One minor flaw is the duplicated '可用性:' prefix inside the availability note, but overall the description is appropriately sized and readable.

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 single-optional-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource, the retrievable sections, and the role/platform availability. It does not detail the response structure, but that is not necessary for such a simple read operation.

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 'section' parameter already has an enum and a description listing the viewable parts. The tool description repeats those same four sections in prose, adding little beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('获取当前登录用户信息' / get current logged-in user info) and enumerates the returned content areas: basic info, resume, job expectations, and delivery records. It is clear and distinct from broad search or status tools, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters that might overlap with resume/history data.

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 note provides useful role and platform constraints (candidate only on zhilian/zhipin, not recruiter), which helps an agent decide whether the tool is allowed. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as boss_resume_list or boss_history, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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