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 and only reveals that the tool executes a monitor and returns new jobs. It does not disclose possible side effects (e.g., whether running a watch marks results as seen or triggers notifications), permissions beyond the cryptic availability note, or reversibility.

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but the bracketed availability text contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo and is presented in a compressed, ambiguous format. This hurts clarity slightly, though the description is still compact.

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 run command, the description gives the essential action and output concept, but with no output schema and no annotations it should say more about what the returned job list contains, whether running is a read-only operation, and any prerequisites for existing watches.

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 parameter name is fully documented in the schema as '监控名称', and schema coverage is 100%. The description's '指定监控' merely restates that the name identifies the monitor to run and adds no format, source, or behavior details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('执行指定监控') and a concrete result ('返回新增职位列表'), making it clear this tool executes a saved watch rather than merely listing or editing watches. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given on when to use this tool instead of boss_watch_list, boss_watch_add, boss_watch_remove, or boss_agent_run. The bracketed availability text identifies permitted roles/platforms but does not help an agent decide when this tool is the right choice.

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