Cheap liveness snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral disclosure. It explains the fields, the lightweight nature, and the critical nuance that nSteps may not move for tens of seconds during a healthy turn. It lacks explicit mention of side effects (none expected) or idempotency, but covers enough for a read-only snapshot 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 a single paragraph that starts with the purpose and key fields, then gives usage guidance. It is dense but efficient. The mixed language slightly impacts readability, but the information-to-word ratio is good. No redundancy, each sentence 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and usage context. It provides a warning about misinterpretation of nSteps. It does not explicitly list return types or formats, but the field names give sufficient semantic hints. The tool's simplicity limits the need for more completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter 'tid' (type string, required) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'tid' represents or how to obtain it. The agent must infer from context or other tools, which is insufficient. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's raw type definition.

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 it's a 'cheap liveness snapshot' lighter than agent_read, lists the fields returned (running/settled/nSteps/checkpointSeq/error/contentTail/driftHint), and implies it provides a quick status of the agent. The purpose is clear despite language mixing Chinese and English. However, the mixed language could cause confusion for an AI agent expecting pure English, slightly diminishing clarity.

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?

Explicitly says 'use in wait loops or before sending guidance to confirm previous turn stopped' and warns against using nSteps as a stuck indicator, stating the only reliable signal is 'settled'. This provides clear when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and behavioral expectations, differentiating it from alternative tools like agent_read.

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