health_write_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine context that this is a local idempotency lookup of a prior write, which is not derivable from annotations, but it omits what happens on a miss and what the result looks like.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key concept (idempotency lookup) is front-loaded with the rationale trailing. It is efficient, though quite terse relative to the tool's workflow role.

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 read tool whose annotations already cover safety and which has no output schema, the description is close to sufficient. Still missing is any hint about the return value or the no-result case, which an agent calling an idempotency-check tool would reasonably want.

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 single parameter is documented in the schema only as an untyped string (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden and does explain the semantic role of idempotency_key: the key whose local write result is being queried. That meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, though no format or length guidance is given.

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 (查詢) plus resource (本機寫入結果) scoped by an idempotency_key, so the agent knows it retrieves a prior write's outcome. It is distinguishable from the mutating siblings (health_create/update/delete) but never names an alternative or sibling to contrast with.

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?

"避免重送" (to avoid resending) implies the intended usage: check before retrying a write. However, it stops at implication — it never says when to prefer this over health_get or health_list, nor what to do if no matching key exists.

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