Get Channel Scan Status

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context—nothing about polling cadence, what progress states look like, or whether the scan must be started first—so it contributes no value beyond the annotation.

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?

One short clause, front-loaded with the action and object; there is no filler or repetition. Its brevity is a structural strength even though other dimensions need more content.

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 0-parameter read with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description covers the core purpose. It omits relational context—that this reports on a scan started elsewhere—which leaves an agent to infer the lifecycle, but the output schema carries return-value details.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument status query; nothing further is needed for parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('查询' = query) and resource ('信道扫描进度' = channel scan progress), so an agent knows it retrieves scan progress. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like start_channel_scan or scan_surrounding_channels, which would be required for a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., call after start_channel_scan), and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this polls an in-progress scan from the name alone.

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