status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. '只读' explicitly communicates that the tool has no side effects, and the list of status areas clarifies its scope. It does not discuss permissions or output details, but the read-only signal is the key behavioral trait for this type of tool.

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 two short sentences that deliver the operation, scope, read-only guarantee, and usage order without any filler. The core action is front-loaded and every clause adds value.

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 simple read-only status tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's role and provides an ordering cue for use. It could mention the output format, but the enumerated status areas and the 'read first' instruction make it adequately complete.

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 100%, so both parameters are already self-documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the verb '查看' (view) and clearly enumerates the status resources: current project, board type, flashing budget, serial port occupation, and download mode status. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as read_serial.

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 phrase '调用前先看这个' explicitly directs the agent to check this tool before making other calls, which is actionable usage guidance. It also flags the tool as read-only, but it does not name alternatives or state exclusions.

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