doubao_desktop_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, but it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: it probes the endpoint without restarting the app (non-mutating/idempotent). It omits auth requirements, what happens on failure, and the exact nature of the check.

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?

Two short sentences, the positive scope is front-loaded, and the negative constraint follows immediately. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 should ideally say what the check yields (a boolean? endpoint details? error semantics) and what to do if the endpoint does not belong to Doubao. It covers the operation's identity and non-mutation but leaves the result contract unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the rubric this is the baseline 4. The schema is empty with 100% coverage by definition.

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 ("Check") and a specific resource (whether the localhost CDP endpoint belongs to the Doubao desktop app), which is materially more precise than the bare name 'status'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_task/read/wait/continue_task, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause "Does not restart it" implies this is a non-mutating pre-check you run before acting on the app, giving implied usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this over sessions or wait, nor any prerequisites for a meaningful result.

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