zhiqi_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates this is a query operation returning identity card fields, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, requires authentication, or can fail in specific ways. For a simple status query, the implied read-only nature is somewhat transparent, but the lack of explicit behavioral detail leaves 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, compact sentence that front-loads the action ('查询') and resource ('本机智能体的公开身份名片'), then lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 query tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what is queried and what fields are returned. However, it does not mention whether the tool can fail (e.g., if the agent is not registered), what the output format is, or whether any prerequisites exist. Given the simplicity of the tool, these gaps are moderate but not severe.

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, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is the main semantic content an agent needs. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description adequately compensates by describing the output fields.

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 queries the local agent's public identity card, listing the specific fields returned (identity code, name, status, masked responsible entity, credential status). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like zhiqi_register or zhiqi_device_info, though the identity-card focus makes it reasonably distinct.

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 implies this is a read-only status query for the local agent's identity, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like zhiqi_register or zhiqi_device_info, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied by the '查询本机智能体' phrasing but not elaborated.

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