get_run_state

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the primary return value (runstate 0/1) and a second value (current model time), which implies a read-only query, but it says nothing about side effects, freshness, or failure modes.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the key information (query, run state, model time) is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, the description should characterise the returned values more fully. It tells an agent that a 0/1 runstate and a model time come back, but not their types, format, or whether they are live, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing about arguments that the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies; the 0/1 enumeration in the description is a small bonus about output rather than input.

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 verb (查询/query) and concrete resources: the run state (with the 0/1 value domain) and the current model time. That is enough for an agent to tell it apart from siblings like webserver_status, list_models or set_datetime, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings such as webserver_status or get_target, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the returned fields.

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