boss_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. '查看' implies a read-only action parentheses, and the embedded availability 'roles=candidate' adds useful context. However, it does not mention what happens when the number is invalid, whether the result is cached from the last search/recommendation, or any side effects/requirements beyond the bracketed availability.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose immediately. However, the bracketed availability section contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo and mixes metadata into the description, which slightly reduces structural polish without harming comprehension.

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 has only one required parameter)Skip and no output schema, the description plus schema are largely sufficient for a simple read operation. It specifies the parameter source and includes availability constraints. It does not describe the output fields or error behavior, but for a low-complexity quick-view tool this is a minor 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 schema already documents 'number' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the number must come from the '上次搜索或推荐结果' (last search or recommendation results), which is more precise than the schema's '从搜索结果中获取'. This helps an agent correctly source the parameter.

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 ('查看' / view), a specific resource ('职位详情' / job details), and a clear scope ('按编号快速查看上次搜索或推荐结果中的职位详情'). It distinguishes itself from related tools like boss_search or boss_recommend by focusing on viewing details from previous search or recommendation results rather than performing a new search.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: after a search or recommendation, when you have a job number from those results. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is a quick detail-view follow-up rather than a new search or full detail endpoint.

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