boss_status

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 add real behavioral context beyond a bare name by disclosing which roles and platforms support the tool (candidate/recruiter, zhipin/zhipin-recruiter), which helps an agent decide applicability. However, it does not state that this is a non-mutating read, nor what the result conveys (logged in vs. expired, account identity).

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?

It is a single short line that is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor deduction for the duplicated label formatting ('availability: availability:'), which adds noise without information.

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 zero-parameter status check with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and where it applies, but says nothing about what a caller learns back from it (success/failure semantics, expiry, account info). That gap matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-wise for the description to clarify or omit.

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 and resource in Chinese: checking the BOSS Zhipin login state, which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings such as boss_me or boss_doctor, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it from the 70+ sibling tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check of authentication state, likely useful before operations that require login. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives (e.g., boss_me), and no stated prerequisites or ordering.

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