health

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does specify the content of the status summary, which is useful, but it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only or discuss any potential side effects or failure conditions. For a health check, the described behavior is adequately clear, though not deeply detailed.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a perfect score for structure.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main return fields: version, ffplay availability, and current engine. It does not explain every possible nuance but is complete enough for a health status 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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the input schema already confirms an empty parameter set. No additional parameter information is necessary.

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 returns a status summary including version, ffplay availability, and current engine. The verb '返回' (returns) is specific, and the resource is well-defined. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on speech operations like speak and listen.

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 implies use for checking system or voice network status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the guidance is only implied.

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