get_case_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb '查询' signals a read-only operation, and '含工作区登记计数' discloses part of what the status includes. It does not cover auth needs, failure behavior, or side effects, but for a simple status-query tool the core behavior is communicated.

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 filler. Every word contributes either the operation, the target resource, or the included count, and nothing needs restructuring.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient to invoke correctly. It only lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_cases and any safety or permission caveats, which are minor for a query-style 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The phrase '案件会话' gives semantic context that case_id identifies the case session whose status is read, but the description does not explicitly define the parameter format or its relation to the workspace count. With one self-descriptive required parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 names a specific operation (query) and resource (current status of a case session), and adds a concrete included data point: workspace registration count. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_cases, but the status-of-a-session wording makes the tool's target clear.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of list_cases or other case-related siblings, and mentions no exclusions or alternatives. An agent must infer the usage boundary from the tool name and the one-line description.

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