agent_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what is surfaced (counts of waiting vs. answered-but-uncollected), which is useful, but says nothing about return shape, scope, or whether the queue is global vs. per-project.

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?

A single compact clause with zero padding, and the key output content (waiting / answered-uncollected counts) is front-loaded. It is arguably spare given that no other aspect is addressed, but every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only status tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent gets back (the two queue counts). No mutation, auth, or rate-limit concerns need addressing given the read-only annotations.

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 100% with only two optional parameters (project, workdir), so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is documented. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb (看/view) and a concrete resource (挂单队列, the pending-order queue), and specifies what it reports: how many are waiting and how many were answered but not yet collected. It is clearly distinct from agent_next and agent_submit, though it never names 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of sibling tools such as agent_next or agent_submit. The description only states what the tool reports, leaving the agent to infer that it is for inspecting (rather than advancing) queue state.

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