personal_derivation_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys read-only intent via '读取' and names the checks it performs, which is useful. But it does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or describe what kind of result the agent should expect beyond the named status categories.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, object, and specific checks all fit in a compact line.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what it checks, which is sufficient to call it correctly. It could be slightly more explicit about return shape or prerequisites, but the low complexity makes that gap minor.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds value by naming the dimensions ('pending, orphaned captures, link drift') that the no-arg call will report on, going beyond the empty input 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 opens with a specific action ('读取', read) and a clear resource ('capture→records 闭环状态'), then lists the exact conditions checked: pending, orphaned captures, and link drift. This distinguishes it from sibling write/capture tools, which perform mutations rather than status inspection.

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool to inspect the capture-to-records closure status and detect pending/orphaned/link-drift issues. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives like personal_validate or personal_session_check, nor does it provide exclusions.

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