chatgpt_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds two useful pieces of context beyond the annotations: no browser is spawned (no side effects on the user's environment), and no credentials are returned (relevant to a login-status check). It does not describe the shape of the status result, which matters because there is no output 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?

A single compact sentence with two clauses: one states what is checked, and one pre-empts the two most likely wrong assumptions, namely launching a browser and returning credentials. It has no filler and front-loads the action.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should give some idea of the result. It lists the things checked (connection, login, project calibration) but says nothing about the return format, so an agent cannot anticipate the fields. For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, this omission is not fatal, but it is a real gap.

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. The description correctly implies the tool needs no input to perform the check.

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 states a specific action (checking connection/login/project-interface status) on a specific resource, so an agent can tell it is a read-only diagnostic rather than an action tool. The distinction from the sibling chatgpt_open_browser is made explicitly. The term '接口校准' (interface calibration) is somewhat idiosyncratic and slightly muddies what exactly is being checked, so the description is not perfectly clear.

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 clearly states the tool does not launch a browser, which implicitly routes the agent to this tool instead of chatgpt_open_browser for a pre-flight check. However, it never explicitly says when to call this (for example, before other calls or when calls fail) and names no other alternatives such as chatgpt_list_projects for project state.

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