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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: it uses long polling, requires the user to send a message to the bot within ~35 seconds to complete binding, and must precede push operations. It does not mention failure behavior or what happens on timeout, but the key interactive traits are covered.

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 entire description is one dense, front-loaded sentence. It places the core action first, then provides the essential operational constraint and the ordering rule, with no wasted words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational context: binding requirement, timeout window, and relationship to bridge_status and push. It could add what is returned or what happens on timeout, but this is not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the default baseline of 4 applies. The schema already fully represents the empty input; no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 a specific action: obtaining or refreshing context_token, and adds the distinctive long-polling/binding behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like bridge_status and push_wechat_message.

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 explicitly gives a usage condition: call this tool before pushing when bridge_status shows no token has been acquired. This effectively tells the agent when to invoke it and implies it is unnecessary once a valid token exists.

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

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 that the tool returns a status (cached or not), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, whether any side effects occur, or the exact return format. Given the simplicity, it adds some value but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the key information (what is returned) and then states its purpose. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema status check tool, the description covers the essential purpose and when to use it. It does not detail the exact format of the status (e.g., boolean vs. object), but the phrasing '是否已缓存' (whether cached) implies a boolean-like response. Given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. Per rubric, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details since there are none.

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 (返回/returns), resource (推送桥当前状态/current status of the push bridge), and specifically what it returns (whether context_token and target user WeChat ID are cached). It also mentions its purpose (pre-push self-check), which distinguishes it from siblings push_wechat_message and acquire_token.

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 gives a clear usage context: '供自动化推送前自检' (for self-check before automated push). This tells an agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives to siblings. However, the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool automatically validates context_token before sending, and details the two branches (valid → push directly; invalid → return guidance to call acquire_token and send a message to the bot). This goes beyond the bare 'push' action and covers the prerequisite flow, which is valuable behavioral context.

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, information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the core action and then explains the token validation logic and usage context. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact; still well-structured and efficient.

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 description covers the main flow (token validation, usage context) but does not describe the return value on successful push, nor does it mention the auto_acquire parameter (even though the schema covers it). For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the missing success-return specification is a minor gap, so it's adequate but not fully complete.

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% as both 'text' and 'auto_acquire' have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions token validation but does not elaborate on parameter specifics. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 ('push') and resource ('text message to user's personal WeChat/ClawBot'), and specifies the scope ('WB automation after scheduled/triggered tasks'). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly referencing acquire_token as a prerequisite and describing the token validation flow, making it unmistakable which tool this is.

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 clear context: 'for WB automation after scheduled/triggered tasks' and explicitly states that if the token is missing/expired, one should call acquire_token first. While it doesn't mention bridge_status, the usage scenario and interaction with acquire_token are clearly outlined, providing sufficient guidance for when to use this tool.

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