boss_crawl_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read-only status operation and names the exact data points returned. It does not discuss side effects, but '读取' makes the non-mutating nature clear, and no additional behavioral context is obviously required for a status-check 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?

The core description is one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned status fields. The availability suffix is useful but contains a duplicated '可用性:' typo, which is a minor structural flaw.

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 simple one-parameter status tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the availability context. There is no output schema, so the listed fields help, but the description does not explain the possible values or interpretation of 'risk status' or 'detail progress'.

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 coverage is 100% and the run_id property is already described as a crawl run identifier returned by 'boss crawl start'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 a specific read operation ('读取') and specifies the resource being read: crawl page cursor, job count, detail progress, and risk status. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools like boss_crawl_results because it explicitly focuses on status fields, though it does not name the alternatives.

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 tool's purpose implies it is used when an agent needs the status of a crawl run, and the run_id parameter description references 'boss crawl start'. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, nor does it list exclusions other than availability constraints.

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