pandaone_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '查看' is consistent with those. It adds useful scope about what status categories are visible, but it does not disclose failure modes, prerequisites, or output behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler: it names the action, the resource, and informative status categories. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with strong safety annotations, the description covers the main status contents. However, it omits root semantics and any return/output details despite there being no output schema, which leaves some ambiguity when an agent needs to target a specific root.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never explains the required root parameter or what it means. The parameter name and default provide only minimal inference, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema-level documentation.

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 action (查看/view) and a clear resource (Pandaone status), with concrete example categories: protected files, audit counts, and lock status. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as pandaone_log or pandaone_watch by name.

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 status-checking wording implies when to use the tool, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or conditions. It earns the implied-usage level rather than the clear-context level.

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