daemon_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('只读') and lists the output fields (PID, start time, heartbeat), disclosing what the agent can expect. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but for a status tool this is sufficient.

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 zero waste. It states the action, the resource, the output fields, and the read-only nature all at once. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is safe (read-only). No additional information is required for correct invocation.

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, so the schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). Per rubric, 0 params gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, and none are needed.

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 a specific verb ('查询' - query) and resource (daemon running status), and enumerates the exact fields returned (PID, start time, heartbeat). It distinguishes itself from siblings like health_check by being daemon-specific, so an agent can tell them apart without opening the schema.

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 implies usage as a read-only status check ('只读'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like health_check or stats, nor does it mention any exclusions. For a simple query tool this is acceptable, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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