bot_status

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent semantics, yet the description adds real value: it promises credentials are never exposed ('never the token') and flags that an optional network probe to QQ can be performed, which is behavior not visible in the schema.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler: the status fields are front-loaded and the optional probe follows as a secondary clause.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the enumeration of reported fields is sufficient for an agent to know what it gets back. Only the probe parameter's exact semantics remain underspecified.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single probe_network parameter, so the description must compensate. It conveys that the optional switch triggers a live QQ gateway probe via get_gateway_bot, but never names the parameter, states the default-false behavior, or describes cost/latency of the network call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show local runtime status') and enumerates exactly what is reported: mode, credential presence, catalog version, event buffer, gateway/webhook state. It is distinguishable from siblings like query_api, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named event_stream_status.

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 closing clause hints at an optional diagnostic action ('Optionally probe QQ with get_gateway_bot'), which implies when to enable the probe, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to sibling status tools.

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