chatgpt_circuit_breaker_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is read-only ('只读取'), operates locally ('本地'), and does not access the ChatGPT webpage ('不访问 ChatGPT 网页'), which are important safety-relevant traits. It does not describe output details, but for a zero-parameter status read this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates scope and key constraint. Every word contributes value: it names the resource, asserts read-only behavior, specifies locality, and states the non-web access.

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, the description covers the essential context: what is being checked and that it is local and non-web. It does not describe the response format or values, but given the apparent simplicity and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The description still helps by clarifying the tool takes no input and is purely a status read, which is consistent with the empty input schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: '只读取本地安全熔断和未确认生成任务状态' (only reads local safety circuit breaker and unconfirmed generation task status). It uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource, and explicitly notes it does not access the ChatGPT webpage, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chatgpt_clear_circuit_breaker or chatgpt_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 implies usage context: it is a read-only, local status check that avoids web access. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chatgpt_status or chatgpt_clear_circuit_breaker, nor does it provide clear exclusions beyond the no-web-access note.

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