boss_resume_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that the result set is 'all local resumes' and names the three per-record fields, implying a safe read, but it says nothing about pagination, empty-list behavior, ordering, or whether local resumes can be stale relative to remote data.

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 compact sentence with the returned fields front-loaded, followed by the availability tag. Minor waste from the duplicated prefix in '可用性: 可用性:', but overall appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what is listed, the scope ('所有本地简历'), and the fields returned. Absent is any note on ordering or result size, which is a small but real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and schema coverage is nominally 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space on inputs.

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 ('列出所有本地简历') and even enumerates the returned fields (名称、创建时间、关联职位数). It does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling boss_resume_show, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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 block gives a real usage condition (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin, recruiter_platforms=-), telling the agent this tool is only applicable in the candidate/zhipin context. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over boss_resume_show or other resume-related siblings.

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