boss_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The bracketed availability block is genuinely useful context: it tells the agent which roles and platforms this tool supports. However, the description does not say what the tool returns, whether it reports per-platform login state, what happens when the user is not logged in, or whether it triggers an auth flow. Those gaps matter for a status-check tool.

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 clause, with the qualifier bracketed at the end, and there is no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter status check.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description need not document the return shape. It should still tell an agent what a success or failure result looks like, and whether this tool covers one or multiple accounts. Without those details or annotations, the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 the description has no parameter semantics to add. The availability qualifiers (roles, platforms) are documented, which is more than the empty schema conveys.

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 plus a specific resource: '检查' (check) '登录态' (login state) for BOSS 直聘. That is far more concrete than a tautology, and no sibling tool appears to duplicate it, but the description does not explicitly say how this tool differs from related account-scoped tools such as boss_me or boss_config.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to call this tool or when not to call it. A reader can only infer that it is a prerequisite or health check to run before other boss_* operations, because the description never states that, and it names no alternatives.

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