get_youtube_token_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only says “get token status information.” It does not disclose whether this is a purely local read, whether it performs a live connectivity/validity check, or whether it has any side effects such as triggering a refresh. The read-only implication of “获取” is helpful, but not enough detail is given.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. For a no-parameter status getter, this length is appropriate and every word 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?

The presence of an output schema means return-value documentation is not needed, and the zero-parameter signature makes invocation simple. However, the description lacks context about preconditions or the tool's role in the token lifecycle, such as whether OAuth must be set up first or how this status check relates to refresh/test flows. It is minimally viable but leaves contextual gaps.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The 100% schema coverage baseline for parameters is trivially satisfied, and the description appropriately omits 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 states a specific verb (“获取”/get) and a concrete resource (YouTube token status). It clearly identifies the tool as a status-reader and the YouTube prefix distinguishes it from the analogous Spotify/Reddit status tools. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with related token tools like refresh_youtube_token or test_youtube_credentials.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus the many related sibling tools, such as test_youtube_credentials, refresh_youtube_token, or auto_refresh_youtube_token_if_needed. The description only states what it does, not under what circumstances an agent should choose it or avoid it.

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