get_system_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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what information is returned, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), whether it requires authentication, performance characteristics, or potential side effects. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in three brief sections: purpose, returned information, and output format. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, the mix of Chinese and English creates minor readability issues, and the 'Returns:' section is somewhat redundant with the previous line.

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 that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it's a relatively simple status-checking operation, the description provides adequate basic information. However, it lacks important context about when to use it versus sibling tools, behavioral details, and could better explain the relationship to similar tools like 'check_version' and 'get_storage_status'.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools, though it doesn't add extra value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose as '获取系统运行状态和健康检查信息' (get system running status and health check information) and specifies what information is returned (system version, data statistics, cache status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_version' (which likely only returns version) and 'get_storage_status' (which likely only returns storage status). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these specific siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for monitoring, troubleshooting) or when other tools like 'check_version' or 'get_storage_status' might be more suitable. There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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