workspace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: it explicitly states it does not return secrets and does not make network requests, which reinforces safety and offline behavior.

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 no wasted words. It efficiently lists the checked items and appends important behavioral constraints in the same compact structure.

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 diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names what it checks, confirms no secrets are returned, and states no network calls are made. Annotations cover the safety profile, and no return-value details are needed.

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?

There are zero parameters (empty schema), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to document parameter meanings, and it correctly focuses on what the tool inspects.

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 (检查/check) and enumerates the resources it inspects: installed version, local library, configured credentials, projects. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation and read siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for contrast.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions or exclusions. It only restates what the tool checks, leaving the agent to infer its diagnostic purpose from the purpose statement alone.

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