Check voice dictation orchestration status: ASR/typer readiness, active session state and device, muted-mic isolation records, and recent summaries; pass session_id for one session's timing details.
语音编排状态：ASR/typer 就绪、活动会话（状态机位置、目的、设备）、未确认关麦的隔离记录与最近会话摘要。可选 session_id 返回单会话详情（含分段耗时）。默认不回传听写正文。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | No | 省略 = 全局状态 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses that dictation body text is not returned by default and that session details include segment durations, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or whether calling it has any side effects.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core status scope, then adds the optional parameter behavior and default privacy behavior in a compact form. Every clause contributes useful information without repetition.
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 status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what is returned and the key default privacy behavior. It is nearly complete, though a note that the operation is read-only would improve completeness given the absence of annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so the optional session_id parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that session_id returns single-session details including segment durations, going beyond the schema's bare note that omission means global status.
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 the specific resource (voice orchestration status) and enumerates what the status covers: ASR/typer readiness, active sessions, isolated unconfirmed mic-off records, and recent session summaries. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as umouse_voice_wait or umouse_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 description explains that passing session_id returns single-session details, which implies a usage pattern, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like umouse_voice_wait or umouse_status. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.