Retrieve survival status: cumulative days, survival time converted to points, consecutive survival, total points, last heartbeat, and today's scoring status with skip reasons. Online time is not counted.
存活总览：累计存活天数、累计存活时间（= 天数 × 24h，与积分 1:1）、当前连续存活、累计存活积分、最近一次心跳、今日业务日是否已计分与跳过原因；在线时长不计分。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful rules: cumulative time = days × 24h with 1:1 points, and online duration does not count. It does not state read-only semantics, data freshness, timezone, or what 'skip reason' means, so coverage is partial rather than complete.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and packs the returned metrics into a readable semicolon-separated list. It is dense but not bloated; separating the metrics into labeled fields would be even easier to parse.
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 overview with no output schema, the description lists the main returned fields and two important business rules (time calculation and online-duration exclusion). It leaves the exact representation of values and the definition of business day unstated, but the core calling context is covered.
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 100% schema coverage by default, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The formula and unit clarifications in the description add value beyond the empty schema.
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 opens with '存活总览' and enumerates the specific survival metrics returned (cumulative days, time, points, consecutive survival, latest heartbeat, today's scoring status), making its purpose concrete. It does not use an explicit imperative verb or name sibling tools to draw the line, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 word '总览' and the aggregated field list imply this is the tool to answer broad survival-summary questions, and the exclusion of online time hints at what it covers. However, it never states when to prefer this over zhiqi_survival_daily, zhiqi_status, or zhiqi_heartbeats, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.