aida_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior through '查看' (view) and lists retrieved data categories, but does not explicitly disclose side effects, idempotency, caching behavior, or return format structure that would help an agent understand the full behavioral contract.

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 consists of two highly efficient sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, while the second provides usage context. There is no redundant or filler text; 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no input parameters) and the lack of an output schema, the description appropriately lists the key data components (tasks, bugs, progress) that constitute 'status'. It could be improved by hinting at the return structure or format, but it adequately covers the essential information needed for tool selection.

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, which per evaluation rules establishes a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps since there are no parameters to document.

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 the specific verb '查看' (view/check) and clearly identifies the resource as 'development operation status'. It enumerates specific data components returned (task list, bug count, progress), which implicitly maps to the sibling tools (task_*, bug_*) and clarifies this is a reporting tool rather than an action tool.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: '在需要了解当前进度时调用' (call when needing to understand current progress). However, it lacks guidance on when NOT to use this (e.g., when to use specific query tools instead) and does not mention alternatives among the siblings.

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