boss_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and that it aggregates rather than returns raw records, which is useful. It does not state permission requirements beyond availability, rate limits, or what the aggregation actually returns, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single clause and the availability constraint follows compactly in brackets. The only blemish is the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' token, which is minor noise but not enough to obscure the meaning.

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 read-only aggregation tool with no output schema, the description indicates the source data but says nothing about the shape or contents of the returned statistics or the funnel stages produced. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this leaves the agent with an incomplete picture of what it will receive.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'days' parameter (统计窗口天数), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or bounds information about the window beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: a read-only aggregation producing a delivery-conversion funnel, and it enumerates the underlying data (greetings, applications, candidate pool, monitoring). This is far more informative than a bare 'stats' label and distinguishes it somewhat from generic stat siblings like boss_agent_stats. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from those siblings by name.

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 line states the roles and platforms under which the tool is usable (roles=candidate, candidate_platforms=zhipin), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, nor any statement of prerequisites or when it should not be called.

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