auth.risk-status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. '查看' signals a read-only status inspection, which is useful. However, it does not disclose operational caveats such as whether the status is cached, whether it reflects live state, or whether any access restrictions apply.

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 compact sentence that names the exact status surface and its intended use. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter tool, the description covers what status is shown and when to use it, and an output schema exists for return details. It loses one point because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named auth.status sibling.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is trivially 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details entirely; the baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool 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?

Description states a specific verb '查看' and a specific resource: risk-control circuit breaker and rate-limit status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like auth.status and auth.doctor by focusing on risk-control and rate-limiting rather than general auth state.

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 parenthetical '监控面板/排查用' explicitly frames when this tool is appropriate: monitoring dashboards and troubleshooting. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but for a zero-parameter status tool the intended context is reasonably clear.

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