获取运行状态

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. It adds that the tool reports online/normal status, but it does not describe the response shape, possible status values, or error behavior. With no output schema, a little more behavioral detail would be useful.

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 entire description is one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds two useful sibling redirects. There is no filler, restatement of the title, or redundant 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?

For a parameterless, annotation-safe status check, the description plus annotations cover selecting and invoking the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by stating the exact return fields, but '是否在线/正常' gives adequate outcome semantics.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document or disambiguate. Per the baseline rule for parameterless tools, this receives a 4 because invocation is unambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('查') and resource ('机器人运行状态'), and states the exact outcome: whether the bot is online/normal. It also differentiates itself from the closest siblings by naming get_version_info and get_login_info as alternatives.

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?

It provides explicit routing guidance: use get_version_info for NapCat version, use get_login_info for the logged-in QQ, and implicitly use get_status for the bot's running state. This is clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use instruction.

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