boss_watch_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. '列出' implies a read-only operation and the availability line adds genuine deployment constraints, but nothing is said about ordering, volume, or what happens when no watch conditions are saved.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence plus a compact bracketed constraint — no waste. The bracket notation is terse but decodable, and the core purpose is stated first.

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-param, no-output-schema listing tool this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it returns (the saved watch conditions) and under which role/platform it is valid. Only the shape of the returned list is left unstated.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and adds a scoping note via the availability block.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list all saved watch conditions. The 'saved' qualifier separates it from boss_watch_add/remove in spirit, but the description never names those siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 block gives a real gating condition (roles=candidate; candidate_platforms=zhipin; recruiter_platforms=-), which tells the agent when the tool applies. However there is no guidance on when to read this list versus running the watches (boss_watch_run) or adding a new one (boss_watch_add).

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