boss_shortlist_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 does disclose an access/availability constraint (candidate role, zhipin platform) that an agent needs before calling, which is genuine behavioral value. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics explicitly, pagination, ordering, or result size for what is presumably a list operation.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a compact metadata tag — nothing wasted. The only blemish is the stuttered '可用性: 可用性:' label, a minor formatting slip rather than a content problem.

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 description covers purpose and access gating adequately. It still omits how the returned shortlist relates to the sibling mutation tools (add/remove/annotate) and gives no hint about ordering or volume, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are required.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/list) and resource (候选池中的所有职位), so an agent knows this returns the full shortlist contents. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbor siblings such as boss_favorites_list or boss_crawl_shortlist, which an agent would have to disambiguate by other means.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance; the only usage context is the bracketed availability string (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-), which gates who may call it but does not say when to prefer it over boss_shortlist_compare or boss_shortlist_add. Usage is left to inference from the tool name.

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