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. It discloses availability but not behavior: no mention of whether the tool is read-only, what response to expect, pagination behavior (despite a page parameter), or any side effects. '获取' implies a query, but beyond that the behavior is opaque.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the availability metadata contains a duplicated '可用性:' label, which is a minor editing redundancy that prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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 nested objects, the description is minimally adequate: it names the purpose and role/platform availability. But with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the return format, pagination behavior, and what a successful recommendation response looks like.

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% and the single parameter 'page' is already described in the schema as '页码'. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: '获取基于简历的个性化职位推荐' (get personalized job recommendations based on resume). It is specific about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like boss_search or boss_ai_suggest.

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 description provides availability constraints (roles=candidate; platforms=qiancheng, zhilian, zhipin) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boss_search, boss_ai_suggest, or boss_ai_fit. Usage context is only implied by the word 'recommend'.

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