get_system_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that the tool returns JSON formatting, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether it has any side effects. It provides minimal insight beyond the literal output.

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, opening with the core purpose. A minor redundancy exists: the 'Returns:' line repeats the mention of returning version/stats/cache, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequately complete. It specifies what data is returned (version, stats, cache) and the format (JSON). It might benefit from a note on side effects, but with the output schema covering return details, nothing critical is missing.

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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given the empty 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 states the verb '获取' (get) and the resource '系统运行状态和健康检查信息' (system running status and health check info), and lists specific data categories (version, stats, cache). This clearly identifies what the tool returns and differentiates it from more specific siblings like get_storage_status or get_rss_feeds_status, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general-purpose health check. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to sibling tools.

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