pdg_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that unknown/expired IDs return a structured error and mentions optional ownership validation. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, who has access, or what the response format is beyond the error case.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary purpose stated first. No redundant details or fluff, achieving maximum efficiency for the information provided.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It explains cook_id partially but omits semantics for ctx and node_path, and does not describe the success response structure, only the error behavior. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for cook_id (optional ownership check) but leaves ctx and node_path completely unexplained. Both are required, and without description the agent cannot infer their roles.

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?

Description uses specific verb '查询' (query) and identifies the exact resource (TOP cook status and work item count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdg_cook (trigger cook) and pdg_workitems (list work items).

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 implies usage for checking status and counts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdg_workitems or pdg_cook. No exclusions or alternative mentions are given, leaving usage context vague.

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