tripo_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the call returns (credits, plan, expiry, quota, ledger entries, task progress) and the verb 查看 implies a non-mutating read, but it says nothing about authentication/API-key requirements, rate limits, or what happens when task_id is unknown or invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose (account status) and secondary capabilities appended after the semicolon. No filler or repetition; only minor cost is that three distinct concerns are packed into a single clause chain.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is genuinely useful. However, for a tool with zero annotations it still leaves gaps around read-only semantics, auth requirements, and error behavior for an invalid task_id, so it is adequate rather than 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%, and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema ('最近 N 条积分流水，默认 0' and 'operator_id / task_id，可选'). The description only restates these in prose ('某个操作的进度', '最近的积分流水') without adding format, valid-range, or interaction details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (查看/check) with a concrete resource set: account status, remaining credits, plan, expiry, special quota, task progress and credit ledger. No sibling tool (all generate/list/download/convert operations) overlaps with status inspection, so an agent can route to it unambiguously. It is a slight grab bag of three concerns, which keeps it off a 5.

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: '可查某个操作的进度' suggests calling it after a generation task, and '剩余积分' implies checking balance before a costly run, but the description never says when to prefer this tool or what to do instead. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools are named.

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