boss_shortlist_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. "View all" implies a read-only listing operation and the availability tag discloses platform/role restrictions, but nothing is said about result size, ordering, pagination, or what happens when the pool is empty.

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?

A single clause plus a compact bracketed qualifier, front-loaded with the action. No filler, though the bracket notation is terse and requires the reader to decode key=value semantics.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope and availability but leaves open what each entry contains and how many are returned. It is adequate to select the tool but thin on what to expect back.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no misleading parameter claims.

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 ("查看...所有职位" – view all jobs in the candidate pool), which tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings such as boss_favorites_list or boss_preset_list, whose names imply similar listing behavior.

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 gives real context: the tool only applies when roles=candidate on candidate_platforms=zhipin and is not available to recruiter platforms. That is useful gating information, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over the other shortlist/favorites listing tools.

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