boss_watch_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool returns new positions but does not disclose whether running the watch has side effects, whether it is read-only, rate limits, permission requirements, or how results are scoped/returned.

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 purpose is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is efficient. Minor penalty for the duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' in the bracketed metadata, which reads as a copy-paste artifact.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the action and a rough output (new job list). It stops short of explaining the return shape, whether the watch must pre-exist, or what happens on empty/duplicate results, leaving clear gaps.

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 single 'name' parameter has a Chinese schema description ('monitor name') with 100% coverage. The description's '指定监控' merely implies the name selects a saved watch without adding format, validation, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (execute) and resource (the specified monitor), plus the outcome (returns new job listings), so an agent understands it triggers a saved watch and yields results. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like boss_watch_add/boss_watch_list, with no explicit contrasting statement.

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?

There is no when-to-use or versus-alternatives guidance; the tool's relationship to boss_watch_add, boss_watch_list, and boss_watch_remove is left entirely to inference. The bracketed availability line (roles=candidate; platform=zhipin) gives a rough prerequisite, but not usage direction.

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