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 burden. It discloses the listing behavior and fields returned, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or data locality (e.g., what 'local' means). This is adequate for a simple read-only 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 sentence achieving its communicative goal without any redundancy. The availability information is appended in a structured bracket notation, keeping the main purpose front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output fields, and usage constraints. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying the data fields in the output (name, creation time, associated jobs), which aids understanding beyond the empty schema.

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 lists all local resumes with specific fields (name, creation time, associated job count). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like boss_resume_show, the verb 'list' implies a collection, distinguishing it from single-resume retrieval.

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 explicit availability constraints for roles and platforms (candidate on zhilian/zhipin only), guiding when the tool is applicable. It does not, however, state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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