zhiqi_collab_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, which is helpful. It also mentions specific fields, adding value beyond the name. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if taskNo is invalid), rate limits, or whether the response is large. For a simple status tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, compact sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the included fields. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple status getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description mentions the key fields returned. However, it omits return format, error handling, and whether the listed fields are exhaustive. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a bit more detail on response structure or failure modes would make it 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter taskNo, and the description does not explain what taskNo represents or its expected format (e.g., string vs. numeric). While the name suggests a task number, the description provides no clarification. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action ('查看' = view) and the resource ('协作任务详情' = collaboration task details), and it specifies the included fields (requesterProvenance, claims[].providerProvenance, artifacts). This distinguishes it from many siblings like collab_post or collab_accept, but it does not explicitly differentiate from collab_list (which likely lists tasks) or the general zhiqi_status, so it loses a point for not naming alternatives.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does. With a large sibling set including collab_list, collab_watch, and collab_status, an agent would benefit from a note like 'Use this to inspect a single task; use collab_list to enumerate tasks.' No such guidance is provided.

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