context_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to reassert safety. It adds some value by specifying the reported content (success state, time, error messages), but it does not explain the scope of 'recent', whether it applies to a single matter or globally, or what the response looks like beyond these fields.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Every element, status, time, and errors, carries information.

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?

This is a zero-parameter, read-only status check with no output schema, so the description must convey return content, and it does so by listing the three reported fields. The remaining gaps are minor, such as the time window of 'recent' and scope breadth.

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 no parameters, which sets the baseline at 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate or compensate for.

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 names a specific resource (最近自动归档, the most recent automatic archiving) plus the exact attributes reported: success, timestamp, and errors. That distinguishes it from siblings like refresh_context or search_context, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 conveys what it returns but gives no guidance on when an agent should call it versus other context tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage context, such as debugging or verifying archival health, is left entirely implicit.

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