status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the scope of returned information (DB connection, session count, message totals, background tasks), which no output schema provides. It stops short of noting cost, freshness of the counts, or behavior when the database is unreachable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the returned fields enumerated after a colon. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 covers the essential question an agent would have: what information comes back. Its only shortfall is not clarifying how this overview differs from the narrower sibling tools that also surface session and task data.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics the description could add. Nothing in the text misdescribes the input contract, and the empty schema is consistent with a parameterless status probe.

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 gives a specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('MiniMax Code 本地状态' / local status), then enumerates the concrete contents: database connection, session count, total messages, and background tasks. An agent can tell this is a health/overview probe rather than a data-fetching tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like minimax_tasks or minimax_list_sessions, which overlap on the 'background tasks' and 'session count' facets.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word '状态' (status) suggests a diagnostic/health-check context, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus minimax_tasks, minimax_list_sessions, or minimax_pending. No prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent must infer the use case from the enumerated fields.

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