网易云客户端状态

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

The description explicitly frames the tool as a read-only check ('检查' / '读取'), and the readOnlyHint annotation confirms no side effects. The macOS-specific behavior is also disclosed, adding useful transparency 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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary scope is stated first, and the platform-specific detail is added concisely.

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 low-complexity, parameterless status tool, the description provides enough context to understand what is being checked. It covers platform, remote capabilities, adapters, and the macOS exception, which is sufficient even without an output schema.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 a specific verb ('检查' / checks) and names concrete resources: current platform, remote capabilities, local player adapters, and macOS client status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like playlist auth or playlist management.

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 makes it clear the tool is for checking runtime status and capabilities, which implies when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is distinct enough from siblings that usage context is clear.

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