whistle_status

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'check status' with no indication of what the check entails, whether it performs any side effects, or what the response format looks like. It doesn't disclose whether the tool is read-only or what 'running status' means in practice.

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 short sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose with no unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about the return value or expected output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the agent will receive (e.g., a boolean, a string, or a status object) to fully leverage the tool's result. This gap makes it less than fully 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is effectively empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since no parameters exist.

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 '检查 whistle 服务运行状态' clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the running status of the whistle service. It uses a specific verb (检查/check) and resource (whistle service status), and it's distinct from sibling tools that deal with rules, values, mocks, sessions, or server info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whistle_server_info or other status-related tools. The intended use is only implied by the name and description, not stated with clear context or exclusions.

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