check_ies_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('查看' meaning 'check/view'), but doesn't disclose authentication needs (though the schema hints at ak/sk), rate limits, error conditions, or what the status output entails (e.g., pending, running, failed). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and target. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly naming the parameters or adding a brief context sentence.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (checking status of a resource), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on authentication, error handling, or typical workflows. The output schema may cover return values, but the description doesn't guide the agent on interpreting results or integration with siblings like 'create_iesapp'.

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%, but the description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying 'workspace' and 'IES instance' are required. It doesn't explain the 'cfg' object structure, the purpose of ak/sk/endpoint fields, or format expectations (e.g., string patterns). With 1 parameter (a nested object with 5 sub-parameters), the baseline is 3 as the schema lacks descriptions, but the tool description doesn't compensate meaningfully.

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 clearly states the action ('查看' meaning 'check/view') and the target resource ('指定workspace中的指定IES实例的创建状态' meaning 'specified IES instance creation status in a specified workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ies_events' or 'check_build_status' by focusing specifically on creation status. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'IES' stands for or the broader context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_ies_events' or 'check_build_status'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workspace/IES instance) or typical use cases (e.g., monitoring after 'create_iesapp'). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context alone.

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