boss_pipeline

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the meaningful trait that this is a cross-source aggregation producing a merged view (implying a read operation with no side effects), but it never states read-only status, cost/latency of aggregating two datasets, or what the merged view consists of.

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 compact clause describes the operation and output, and the availability tag is appended as a clearly delimited constraint. Nothing is padded, though the description is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth, yet it does not say what fields the 'unified progress view' returns or how chat and interview data are reconciled. For a zero-parameter aggregation tool this is adequate to select it but incomplete for predicting its results.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No conflicting or missing parameter semantics are introduced.

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 concrete verb pair (聚合/aggregate, 生成/generate) over specific resources (聊天和面试数据 chat and interview data) producing a named artifact (统一候选进度视图 unified candidate progress view). This clearly separates it from single-source siblings such as boss_interviews or boss_chat_summary, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 a real gating rule (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), which tells an agent when the tool is callable but not when it should be preferred over boss_interviews, boss_chat_summary, or boss_stats. Usage is implied rather than argued.

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