zhiqi_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a non-mutating diagnostic access-side check, which is valuable, but it does not state what the output/result looks like, whether any configuration is changed, or what the self-check verdict means. Some behavioral context is present, but important details are missing.

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?

One single, dense sentence front-loads the core function, lists the checked items, and ends with the recommended usage condition. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what it does and when to use it. The main gap is that it does not describe what a successful or failed self-check result looks like or how to interpret the output, but this is minor given the tool's simple diagnostic scope and clear trigger.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per calibration rules. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and invocation trigger rather than inventing parameter rules, so no additional param semantics are needed.

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 names a specific verb '自检' (self-check) and a clear resource '接入端' (access side), then enumerates the exact dimensions checked: device key, local identity, source metadata, platform connectivity, and clock skew. This distinguishes it as a diagnostics-focused tool and makes its purpose obvious without opening any schema.

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 explicitly states the primary trigger: '接入失败时优先调用' (call this first when access fails). This gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not name sibling alternatives such as zhiqi_status or zhiqi_heartbeat, nor does it say when not to use this tool.

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