selfCheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool performs diagnostic checks on configuration and credential availability, specifically checking if a tenant access token can be obtained. However, it doesn't specify what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure status, error details) or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that front-loads the key action ('诊断' meaning 'diagnose') and covers all essential aspects (what is checked and usage constraints) without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple diagnostic with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and behavioral intent. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., what diagnostic information is provided), which is a minor gap since there's no output schema to compensate.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately states there are no parameters needed for this diagnostic check, which aligns with the empty input schema, adding no unnecessary parameter information.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('检查' meaning 'check') and resources ('配置', '凭证可用性', 'tenant_access_token' meaning 'configuration', 'credential availability', 'tenant access token'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on diagnostic functionality rather than data operations like creating records or listing events.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines by stating '不依赖具体权限' (does not depend on specific permissions), which clarifies when to use this tool (for configuration/credential checks without permission requirements) versus when to use sibling tools (which likely require specific permissions for operations like creating records or sending messages).

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