boss_me

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. The verb '获取' clearly indicates a read/fetch operation scoped to the current logged-in user, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, default behavior when 'section' is omitted, or any other behavioral detail beyond the basic retrieve action.

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 purpose is stated compactly and front-loaded, followed by availability metadata. However, there is a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo and the availability suffix feels mechanically appended, which slightly hurts clarity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the 'section' parameter is optional, but the description does not say what happens when it is omitted or what the full response shape looks like. The data categories are listed, which provides a reasonable baseline, but an agent still lacks some context for invoking it correctly.

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 schema only says '指定查看的部分' for the 'section' parameter, but the tool description maps the English enum values (info, resume, expect, deliver) to Chinese concepts (基本信息、简历、求职期望、投递记录). This adds practical meaning beyond the schema, so it earns above baseline despite full schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('获取当前登录用户信息') and resource, and enumerates the data categories (基本信息、简历、求职期望、投递记录). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like boss_resume_list or boss_show, so it stops short of a 5.

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 information explicitly restricts use to candidate roles and names supported platforms, while 'recruiter_platforms=-' signals that recruiters should not use it. It provides clear context but does not name alternative tools or decision conditions, so it lacks the full 5-level guidance.

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