get_napcat_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'get' framing implies a safe read, and noting it wraps two API calls adds useful context about scope, but it says nothing about behavior when the service is down, latency, or what fields the status payload contains.

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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the composition detail in parentheses. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical implementation note is secondary information.

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 zero-parameter read-only status tool, the description adequately covers scope (running status + version) and implementation. It is slightly thin on return-value expectations, but the purpose statement itself indicates what the agent will get back.

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 of 4 applies. There is no parameter information needed and nothing in the description misrepresents the input contract.

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 and resource (获取 NapCat OneBot 11 协议端运行状态与版本信息) and discloses that it is a composite of get_status and get_version_info. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the neighboring check_napcat_environment tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the nature of a status/version query, so an agent can infer it is a health-check tool. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over check_napcat_environment, start_napcat_service, or the underlying get_status/get_version_info calls.

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