qq_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states 'Query' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or mention any conditions (e.g., authentication, connectivity). The listed fields give some insight into the response, but it does not disclose potential errors or limitations. Overall, it is minimally adequate but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action and the specific data points returned. It is concise and well-structured for immediate comprehension.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description fulfills all necessary context. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and what fields will be in the response. There is no additional information an agent would need to correctly invoke this tool; it is complete for its simplicity.

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, and the schema (empty object) already reflects this. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description is not required to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because the tool's interface is trivial and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('bridge status'), followed by a concrete list of fields it covers (connection, bot QQ, private whitelist, group whitelist, inbox count). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like qq_send or qq_poll_inbox, which are action-oriented.

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. It does not mention typical scenarios (e.g., 'check before sending') or exclude cases where other tools are more appropriate. While the purpose is clear, the lack of usage context means an agent might not know when to invoke it without additional inference.

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