acs_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb '获取' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and the listed output fields (running, PID, port) clarify what the tool returns. However, it does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs in the key information: what the tool does and what it returns. There is no redundant text, and it is immediately understandable.

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?

The description adequately covers the return values (running state, PID, port) despite lacking an output schema. It is complete enough for a simple status-check tool, though it does not detail data types or error handling, which are not critical for such a tool.

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 zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no need to describe parameter semantics beyond what already exists.

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 retrieves the miniACS server running status, listing specific attributes (running state, PID, port). The verb '获取' (get) and resource are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like acs_start, acs_stop, etc.

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 implied usage is to check server status, which is evident from the tool name and description. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternative tools, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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