Inspect the complete state of your persisted personality and identity system for debugging. View current emotions, drives, and session context to troubleshoot agent behavior.
完整状态检视（调试用）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether inspection is read-only, what 'status' actually contains, or whether it triggers side effects. 'For debugging' hints at a safe read but does not disclose behavior explicitly.
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?
A single short sentence with no waste; the debug-use caveat is placed inline. Nothing to trim, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned 'status' comprises. It does not, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the payload for a tool whose entire purpose is inspection.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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 states a verb+resource ('完整状态检视' – full status inspection), but because the tool is literally named 'status', this largely restates the name and is close to tautological. It adds only the qualifier '(调试用)' (for debugging). No distinction is drawn from siblings like snapshot or event, which may also surface state.
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 parenthetical '(调试用)' implies the tool is intended for debugging, which is a light usage cue. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over snapshot or the other state-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.