chatgpt_answer_tier_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that it does not send prompts, which is a key behavioral guarantee. It also details the return format (current position and value range), though it does not discuss failure conditions or prerequisites.

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, well-structured sentence with an illustrative example. It is concise and every part adds value: what it reads, an example, and a safety note about not sending prompts.

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, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return value with an example. It is self-contained and provides enough context for an agent to know when and how to use it without additional documentation.

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 schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information but also does not need to. It focuses on the behavior rather than input, which is appropriate.

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 tool reads the current position and accessible range of a capability slider next to the input box, with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like chatgpt_select_answer_tier, which presumably sets the tier, by focusing on reading status.

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 context that this is a non-invasive read operation ('不会发送提示词'), which guides safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this over chatgpt_status or other status-related tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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