pasm_status

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 suggests a non-destructive read via '查看' and reveals the returned fields, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, behavior on missing agent_id, or any permissions/rate limits. It adds value by listing the snapshot contents but stops short of documenting edge-case behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('查看 PASM 状态快照') and then enumerates the key fields. It is compact and every clause conveys meaningful content, with no 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description lists the main return contents and clearly states the tool's purpose. However, it omits any mention of the optional agent_id parameter, how values are formatted, or potential error conditions, which could lead to incorrect invocation when targeting a specific agent.

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 0% and the description never mentions the agent_id parameter. The tool name and parameter name are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how agent_id affects the snapshot, so the agent receives no guidance beyond the bare schema.

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 resource ('PASM 状态快照'), and lists the exact fields included, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actions (pasm_save, pasm_act) rather than querying state. No sibling is about status, so this is unambiguously the status reader.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It merely states what it does, leaving an agent to infer use cases. There are no explicit 'use when' conditions or exclusions, so an agent might not know whether to call this or pasm_context for a status check.

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