get_monash_status

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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering the safety profile, the description adds that the tool returns either a status summary or a full checkup ('返回状态摘要或完整体检'), which tells the agent what output to expect. It doesn't describe auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-only diagnostic tool this addition is meaningful beyond the annotation.

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 tool's purpose, then usage guidance, then alternatives, in three tight sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by either defining scope or routing to siblings.

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 diagnostic tool with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and expected return format. Annotations handle safety, and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single parameter's meaning ('true=完整诊断；false=简要状态') is fully captured in the schema itself. The description's mention of '状态摘要或完整体检' maps to the same boolean but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'diagnose' and lists specific resources: login, sync, indexing, and error status. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming sync_monash_data and start_monash_login with their appropriate use cases, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('报错或“用不了”时用') and names two alternative tools with the conditions that select them ('只需刷新数据用 sync_monash_data'; '登录过期且用户同意后用 start_monash_login'). This is exactly the kind of when/when-not/alternatives routing that usage guidelines require.

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