boss_watch_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a new job list, but does not state whether it is destructive, if it requires prior setup, or any side effects. For a 'run' command, more behavioral context is needed.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and output without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and strong sibling differentiation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the watch must have been previously created via boss_watch_add, but the name 'boss_watch_run' implies this context. An output schema would further improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'name' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond it, meeting the baseline. No enums or complex constraints exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('执行' = execute) and resource ('监控', monitoring) and explicitly states the output ('新增职位列表'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boss_watch_add (add watch) and boss_watch_list (list watches).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after adding a watch, before removing). The description does not mention prerequisites or context needed for invocation.

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