get_round_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output contents (round number, vote status, blocks left) and the verb '获取' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, nor does it address possible errors, prerequisites, or authentication requirements.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists specific data points. There is no redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value information and it covers the key fields clearly. Minor gaps exist around data types or error conditions, but for a simple status check with one parameter, the description is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter (roomId), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about roomId, which is acceptable since the schema handles it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('获取') and resource ('详细的轮次信息'), and enumerates the exact data returned: current round number, whether the user voted, and blocks remaining until settlement. This level of detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_arena_status or get_game_history, even without naming them.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only signal is the tool name and the 'round information' phrasing, which implies usage but does not state when to choose it over get_arena_status or check_session_status.

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