boss_watch_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. '列出所有已保存的监控条件' conveys a non-mutating read/list behavior, which is the core behavioral trait. It does not disclose output shape, pagination, or ordering, but for a zero-parameter list tool the stated behavior is minimally adequate.

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 description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' and the embedded availability block are slightly awkward, but they do not significantly hurt readability. It is concise overall.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description states enough about what the tool does. The availability metadata adds role and platform constraints. It does not describe the return fields, but this is not critical for invoking a list tool with no inputs.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100% and no parameter explanations are needed. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies; the description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add.

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 action and resource: '列出所有已保存的监控条件' (list all saved watch conditions). This clearly identifies the tool as a read-only query of saved watch conditions, and the verb distinguishes it from siblings like boss_watch_add, boss_watch_remove, and boss_watch_run. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops short of the strongest differentiation.

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 purpose sentence implies when to use this tool: whenever all saved watch conditions need to be viewed. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, and the availability metadata is a constraint rather than a usage guideline. The intended use is inferable but not explicit.

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