umouse_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does more than most: '查看' signals a read, and the seven enumerated categories tell the agent exactly what surface it observes, including diagnostic-specific content like event buffer watermark and legacy process takeover records. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or mention cost, permissions, or latency, which keeps it below 5.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and its returned contents, followed by a one-clause usage directive. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the actionable guidance sits at the end where it is easy to act on.

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, so the description must convey the return content, and it does: it lists all seven status categories an agent would receive. For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool, nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter claims in the description conflict with the empty schema.

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 concrete verb and resource (查看 uMouse SDK 服务状态) and then enumerates the exact payload the tool returns: SDK version, uptime, config summary, online device count, event buffer watermark, recording status, and legacy-process takeover records. That lets an agent distinguish it from narrow siblings such as umouse_get_capabilities or umouse_list_devices, although the overlap with umouse_voice_status ('recording status' appears in both) is never explicitly resolved.

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 line '排查问题先调它' gives a clear triage directive: call this first when diagnosing problems. That is genuine usage guidance rather than an implied hint. It stops short of a 5 because it gives no exclusion or alternative-selection rule (e.g., when to prefer umouse_voice_status or umouse_get_events instead).

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