boss_show

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

The verb '查看' and '职位详情' convey a read-only retrieval, and the source scope is stated. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does not disclose behavior for stale/invalid numbers or what exactly 'details' includes.

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 one sentence plus availability metadata, with no filler. The duplicate '可用性:' label is a minor structural defect but does not harm 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential context: what to call it with, where the number comes from, and who can use it. It lacks explicit error/failure detail and return format, but the tool's simplicity limits the missing information.

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 fully documents 'number' as a required integer obtained from search results, so schema coverage is 100%. The description restates the source but adds little beyond the schema, and no valid range or refresh guidance is provided.

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 ('按编号快速查看'), a resource ('职位详情'), and a clear scope ('上次搜索或推荐结果'). This distinguishes it from generic detail tools like boss_detail and from resume-focused tools like boss_resume_show.

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 the tool is used after a search or recommendation, with a job number from those results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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