boss_recommend

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. It does not state permission requirements, whether recommendations are read-only, pagination limits, or what happens with an empty resume. The availability note is the only contextual hint, which is insufficient for a recommendation tool.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with a concise availability tag. No wasted words, though the duplicated '可用性:' prefix is redundant and slightly reduces 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 recommendation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits return format, resume source assumptions, pagination behavior, and how results relate to resume data, leaving an agent with significant gaps.

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% (the single page parameter has a description '页码'), so the schema already documents the only parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema baseline, which is appropriate for a 1-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?

The Chinese text '获取基于简历的个性化职位推荐' clearly states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (基于简历的个性化职位推荐/resume-based personalized job recommendations). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like boss_hr_recommendations or boss_search beyond the resume-based personalization.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The availability bracket hints at platform constraints (zhipin) but does not tell the agent when this tool is preferable to alternatives such as boss_hr_recommendations or boss_search.

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