Get Sdwan Status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, and an output schema exists to describe the return payload, so the description carries little burden. It adds no extra behavioral context such as what the SD-WAN status reflects or any call conditions, so it stays below the 3 baseline.

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, front-loaded phrase with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though extremely terse, offering no elaboration that would help an agent confirm fit.

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?

With an output schema describing returns and readOnlyHint covering safety, the essentials are present for a zero-parameter read tool. However, the description never indicates what the SD-WAN status covers or when this differs from other status endpoints, so it is only minimally 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, so the baseline is 4 by rule; there are no parameter semantics needing explanation beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states a specific verb (获取/get) and resource (SD-WAN 智能组网状态), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from other read-only status tools in the sibling list (e.g. get_wan_status, get_system_overview), which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the other status/monitoring tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool for SD-WAN status purely from the name.

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