bgi_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the safety profile — and it does, by declaring the tool read-only and bounding its output to specific sections including only the 'latest log tail' rather than full logs. It stops short of describing response shape or size limits, which is a modest gap for a low-risk read operation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads the enumerated scope, the second the mandatory usage rule. Each sentence earns its place.

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 an aggregate status tool with no output schema, enumerating the six returned sections is the key completeness signal and it is present. Only the precise return format/layout is left unstated, which the JSON flag partially covers.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('machine-readable JSON, default true'), so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds nothing param-specific. Baseline 3 applies since structured data does the work.

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?

Names a specific resource (BetterGI status) with explicit scope: process, window, key config, one-dragon config, latest log tail, progress file. This aggregate-overview framing distinguishes it from narrower siblings like bgi_schedule_info or bgi_run_task_progress. The 'read-only' qualifier further pins down what kind of tool it is.

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?

Explicit directive: 'call it first before any operation to confirm state' (任何操作前先调用它确认状态), which gives a clear trigger condition. No when-not conditions or named alternatives, but for a universal preflight tool that omission is minor.

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