查看黄雀状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it reads specific types of information (Registry version, statistics, buckets, provider config), which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects (though annotations cover this) or what happens if the Registry is unavailable. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that lists the key information the tool provides. It is front-loaded with the verb '读取' and covers the main aspects. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but for a simple status tool, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations are comprehensive, the description is sufficient. It lists the main categories of information returned (Registry version, statistics, buckets, provider config), which gives the agent a good idea of what to expect. The output schema likely provides more detail on the return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does clarify what the tool returns (Registry version, statistics, etc.), which adds value beyond the empty schema. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets this by providing context on the output.

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 Registry version, source/position/run statistics, expiration query buckets, and Provider configuration status. It uses a specific verb ('读取' - read) and resource (Registry status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like huangque.audit or huangque.get_run. However, it could be more explicit about what '状态' encompasses and how it differs from similar status-related tools.

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 this is a read-only status tool, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's a quick overview vs. more detailed tools like huangque.audit or huangque.source_coverage. The context signals show it has no parameters, suggesting it's a general status check, but this is not explicitly stated.

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