boss_pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool combines chat and interview data and generates a view, but it does not disclose whether the operation mutates state, requires special permissions, or how the aggregated data is scoped or refreshed. The duplicated '可用性' also suggests casual metadata quality.

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 description is a single short sentence that front-loads the action and purpose, with a compact availability note in brackets. However, the duplicated '可用性' is a minor typo that detracts from polish.

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 zero-parameter aggregation tool, the action and output concept are minimally stated. However, no output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the '统一候选进度视图' contains, and it does not explain side effects, result shape, or how it relates to similar siblings.

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 input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter meanings for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: it aggregates chat and interview data into a unified candidate progress view. The purpose is clear and informative, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boss_chat_summary or boss_interviews.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, even though the sibling list contains many related aggregation and summary tools. The availability attribute gives role/platform constraints but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.

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