star_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the categories of information returned, which implicitly signals a read-only snapshot and helps an agent judge whether the call is safe, but it never states that it is non-mutating, whether the quota figure is real-time or cached, or whether login status surfaces credentials or just boolean state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the verb and topic before the field enumeration, so an agent reading only the first clause already knows what the tool is for. Nothing is padded, though the trailing '等' (etc.) leaves the list technically open-ended.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what the call yields, and it does enumerate the key fields. It stops short of describing the shape of the response (nested vs flat, per-account vs global), but for a zero-argument status probe the coverage is reasonable.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing the description could add about inputs, and the enumerated output facets are better classified as return-value context than parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('查看' / view) and a specific resource ('自动点星的状态' / auto-starring status), then enumerates the facets inspected: master switch, mode, today's consumed quota, account login status, blacklist. An agent can distinguish it from mutation-oriented siblings like configure_autostar or ensure_starred without opening a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: a status-inspection tool is naturally selected when the agent needs current state before acting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as check_star for a single account's star state. Adequate but leaves the routing decision to inference.

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