wps_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (checking bridge status) and coverage of three hosts. Although it does not explicitly state side effects or output format, the verb '检查' and tool name imply a non-mutating diagnostic action, offering sufficient transparency for a status check 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a clear usage directive. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.

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 diagnostic tool, the description covers purpose, scope (three hosts), and usage context. A minor gap is the absence of return-value expectations, but given the simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the provided context is largely complete.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description contains no parameter information, but there are no parameters to document, and the context of 'check connection status' is enough without them.

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 ('检查' – check) and identifies the exact resource: the WPS add-in bridge connection status across three hosts (wps/et/wpp). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform document/operation tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use: '任何 wps_* 调用失败时先调用它排查' – call this first whenever any wps_* call fails, positioning it as a diagnostic tool for troubleshooting. This provides clear, actionable usage guidance relative to alternatives.

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