boss_wizard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that workflows are persistent, shared with a human wizard, and constrained by role/platform availability, and it enumerates the four action types. However, it does not explain side effects of run/resume/stop, whether stopping destroys a run, required human interaction, or return/error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action set, followed by the prerequisite and availability constraints. The duplicated '可用性: 可用性:' typo and absence of structural separation keep it from a 5.

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?

This is a multi-action orchestrator with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no required parameters at the schema level. The description does not specify which parameters each action needs (e.g., run requires a catalog goal; resume/status/stop likely require run_id), nor what responses look like, so the agent cannot reliably invoke all actions.

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?

Because the input schema already documents all 9 parameters, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by directing the agent to discover wizard_catalog via boss schema and by encoding role/platform availability, which constrains the meaning of goal, role, and platform beyond the bare schema.

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 set (execute, resume, query, stop) and a specific resource (persistent workflow shared with a human wizard), and adds a discovery path via boss schema / wizard_catalog. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with sibling workflow-related tools such as boss_agent_run or boss_watch_run.

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?

It gives clear operational context: call boss schema first to discover wizard_catalog, and restrict use to candidate/recruiter roles on the listed platforms. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is not a full 5.

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