getWhistleStatus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While '获取' (get) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time vs cached data, or what format the status information comes in. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' means in this context (e.g., running/stopped, metrics, configuration state) or what format the information returns. For a status tool that could have various interpretations, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, though it could theoretically mention that no configuration is needed for this status check.

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 clearly states the action ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('whistle服务器的当前状态' meaning 'whistle server's current status'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'getCurrentTimestamp' or 'getInterceptInfo' which also retrieve status-like information, preventing a perfect score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getCurrentTimestamp' and 'getInterceptInfo' that might retrieve related status information, there's no indication of when this specific status check is appropriate versus other getter tools.

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