get_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully enumerates the state domains the snapshot covers, but never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, which is the key behavioral fact for a zero-arg status tool.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core concept ('会话快照') and then lists the covered state. Every element earns its place, though the terse colon-list style leaves no room for guidance.

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 and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the returned state fields, which is exactly what is needed. Only the read-only/side-effect behavior and sibling differentiation are missing.

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 there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-level detail because none exists.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a session snapshot enumerating connection/identity/mode/VDD/capture/calibration state. Clear what it returns, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_capture_status, with which it explicitly overlaps via '采集进行中状态'.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given. An agent is left to infer that this is a general status check, and the overlap with get_capture_status is not resolved.

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