get_system_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON system status information including version, data stats, and cache status, which implies a read-only health-check operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, freshness guarantees, or 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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The 'Returns:' line adds useful format information, though the content is slightly redundant with the earlier list of returned fields.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the tool's purpose and the general shape of its response. It could add a note about whether the status info is real-time or cached, but overall it is sufficient for a simple status endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain beyond what the schema already makes clear. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: '获取系统运行状态和健康检查信息' (get system running status and health check info), and lists concrete contents such as version, data statistics, and cache status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_storage_status or get_current_config, which target narrower concerns.

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?

The usage context is implied by the description: an agent would use this when needing overall system health and status. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_storage_status, get_current_config, or check_version.

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