boss_wizard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions persistent workflows and a stop action, but does not describe permissions, side effects, reversibility, authentication needs, or what happens to existing state when stopping or resuming.

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 dense sentence with the action list front-loaded. The bracketed availability note is useful and compact, though the sentence is slightly cramped by packing purpose, prerequisite, and availability into one line.

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 nine-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite schema discovery, and availability constraints. It still leaves out behavioral details an agent would want before invoking a persistent workflow, especially around stop/resume side effects and output expectations.

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 all nine parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about discovering wizard_catalog and availability by role/platform, but it does not further clarify inputs, run_id, timeout, or retry semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 four specific verbs (execute, resume, query, stop) and a clear resource: a persistent workflow shared with a human guide. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from related orchestration siblings such as boss_agent_run or boss_watch_run, 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?

It gives an important prerequisite: first call boss schema to discover wizard_catalog. It also lists availability constraints by role and platform. However, it does not say when to use this instead of the many sibling workflow/agent tools, nor does it provide when-not guidance.

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