chatgpt_status

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default not expanding the advanced menu, which adds context about the includeSettings parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe any potential side effects, leaving some uncertainty for an AI agent.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose, then provide usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or excessive detail.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, usage timing, and default behavior. It does not describe the return format or enumerate possible status values, but for a status check the output is largely inferable, so this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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% for the single optional parameter, including its default and purpose. The description's mention of '默认不展开高级菜单' essentially duplicates the schema's default false behavior without adding meaningful extra semantics, so the schema already carries the load.

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 checks specific status items: dedicated browser, login, current conversation, mode, and temporary chat status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects (e.g., chatgpt_capabilities, chatgpt_list_modes), though the list is broad and could be more explicit about the 'mode' term.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('仅在诊断或确需状态时调用') and when not to use ('正常发送无需预先调用'), providing clear guidance on when it is unnecessary. This is strong, actionable direction, even though it does not name specific alternative tools.

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