chatgpt_answer_tier_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is a read (读取), provides an example of the returned status string, and explicitly guarantees it will not send prompts. It does not mention potential preconditions or failure modes, but for a simple UI status read this is fairly transparent.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and resource, include a concrete example, and add a non-goal statement. No wasted words.

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, the description is complete: it names the resource, gives an example output, and clarifies the non-sending behavior. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the example, and an agent can invoke it without further information.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that the tool takes no input and simply reports the current slider state.

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 the tool reads the current position and accessible range of the answer-tier slider, with a concrete output example ('极高，第 4 项，共 5 项'). The explicit note that it does not send prompts distinguishes it from sibling tools like chatgpt_select_answer_tier and chatgpt_send_message.

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 implies a read-only inspection use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives such as chatgpt_select_answer_tier. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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