chatgpt_status

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a default behavioral detail (不展开高级菜单) and lists what is inspected, but it stops short of explicitly stating read-only/no side-effect behavior or what the returned status contains.

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 carry the tool's scope, usage restriction, and default behavior with no filler. The most decision-relevant guidance ('only call when diagnosing') comes first.

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 low-complexity optional-parameter status tool, the description covers purpose, invocation timing, and default behavior. It does not define the output format, but no output schema exists and the status scope is enumerated; the remaining gap is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single includeSettings parameter, and the description's mention of default non-expansion of the advanced menu effectively restates that schema default. No meaningful semantic detail is added beyond the 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 names a specific action (检查/check) and the exact scope of what is inspected: dedicated browser, login, current conversation, mode, and temporary conversation state. It is clearly about status inspection, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling diagnostic tools such as chatgpt_network_diagnostics or chatgpt_circuit_breaker_status.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('仅在诊断或确需状态时调用') and provides a when-not ('正常发送无需预先调用'). This gives clear context and exclusion, but it does not name sibling alternatives for other diagnostic checks.

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