boss_recommend

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. '获取' implies a read-only operation and the availability tag communicates role/platform gating, but nothing is said about whether a stored resume is required, how many recommendations come back, pagination limits, or rate behavior. Adequate for a simple read, but leaves real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

One front-loaded sentence stating purpose, followed immediately by an availability constraint. Every element carries information and there is no padding. A slightly clearer separation of purpose and gating would earn a 5, but this is efficient.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers purpose and the role/platform gate that determines whether the call is valid at all. The main remaining unknown is the precondition that a resume must exist to personalize results. Given the tool's simplicity, that is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is a single optional 'page' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already labeling it '页码'. The description adds no meaning about paging depth, page size, or what happens when page exceeds available results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only parameter.

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 specific verb and resource: fetch personalized job recommendations derived from the resume. The bracketed availability tag (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin) makes clear it is the candidate-side counterpart to boss_hr_recommendations, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so not 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 clause gives a concrete usage gate: only call this when the acting role is candidate and the platform is zhipin, and it explicitly excludes recruiter platforms. That is useful routing information. It does not, however, name an alternative tool to call when the gate fails (e.g. boss_hr_recommendations for recruiters), so guidance is conditional rather than complete.

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