boss_wizard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals two traits: persistence ('持久化 workflow') and human-in-the-loop sharing ('与真人向导共享'). However, it never discloses side effects per action, auth requirements, or what 'stop'/'resume' actually do to state, which is significant for a mutating multi-action tool.

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?

Action list is front-loaded and compact, but the trailing bracket contains a duplicated fragment ('可用性: 可用性') which is wasted tokens and slightly obscures the availability constraint.

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 9-parameter, multi-action workflow tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only minimally adequate: it covers availability and the discovery prerequisite but omits which parameters apply to which action and what the human-wizard interaction entails.

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%, and the schema itself already maps each parameter to its action (e.g. 'run 时的 catalog goal', 'resume/status/stop 的显式 workflow run_id'). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what structured fields provide, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb set (执行/恢复/查询/停止 = run/resume/status/stop) applied to a distinctive resource: a persistent workflow shared with a human wizard. The 'wizard_catalog / 真人向导' framing clearly separates it from the many boss_agent_* siblings, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('先调用 boss schema 发现 wizard_catalog') and availability constraints (roles=candidate/recruiter; platforms=zhipin / zhipin-recruiter), which tells an agent when the tool is applicable. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternative tools.

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