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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose (getting recommendations) and availability constraints. It does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it mutates any state), prerequisites (e.g., whether a resume must exist), return format, pagination behavior, or rate limits. The availability note is metadata about who can use it, not behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 main purpose. However, the bracketed availability note contains a duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo, which is a minor structural flaw. The note is useful but not perfectly clean. Every sentence mostly earns its place, but the duplication and somewhat cramped formatting reduce 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose and availability constraints. Yet it lacks important context: what the output looks like, whether a resume must already exist, how recommendations are generated, and how to handle pagination. Given the missing annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves an agent without full guidance for a correct invocation.

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% (the only parameter 'page' is described as '页码'). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not enrich the semantics of 'page' or explain how it interacts with the recommendation list.

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 the tool's action: retrieving personalized job recommendations ('获取基于简历的个性化职位推荐'). It specifies the input basis (resume) and distinguishes itself from generic search tools (e.g., boss_search) by emphasizing personalization. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it falls 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 bracketed availability note ('roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhilian, zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-') provides implicit usage context: it is only for candidates on specific platforms, not for recruiters. This is a partial usage guideline, but no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives direction is given, and there are no exclusions or conditions for when this tool should be chosen over similar ones.

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