jlink_get_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a read-only status check ('取得' - get/obtain) that can be called anytime, implying non-destructive and safe operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if calling it might reset connections), performance characteristics, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose followed by additional detail about what information is included and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only status check) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, scope of information returned, and usage context. The main gap is lack of explicit behavioral details about potential side effects or error handling, but for this type of diagnostic tool, the description provides adequate context.

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 with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4 for not adding unnecessary information.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('取得' - get/obtain) and resource ('J-Link 連線狀態' - J-Link connection status), plus additional detail about what information is included ('完整摘要' - complete summary, '顯示探針連線狀態、目標晶片資訊、RTT 狀態等' - shows probe connection status, target chip information, RTT status, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jlink_connect, jlink_close, and rtt_get_status by focusing on status retrieval rather than connection management or RTT-specific operations.

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 provides clear usage context with '此工具隨時可以呼叫' (this tool can be called at any time), indicating it's safe to use without prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as clarifying that rtt_get_status is for RTT-specific status while this is broader J-Link status.

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