qzone_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states it '不会返回 Cookie/CSRF' (will not return Cookie/CSRF), which is a meaningful security-related behavior beyond the schema. The verb '检查' implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly guarantee no side effects; overall this is good transparency for a zero-parameter status tool.

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?

A single, dense Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the most consequential limitation (no Cookie/CSRF return). Every element earns its place, with 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool checks and what it deliberately hides for security. It doesn't describe the exact return format, but for a simple status probe the missing return details are minor and the explicit exclusions add important context.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, so schema coverage is trivially 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since the tool takes zero arguments.

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 uses a specific verb ('检查' - check) and identifies exact resources: QZone daemon, NapCat login credentials, and binding status. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like qzone_publish or qzone_delete, which are mutation tools, by framing this as a status inspection tool.

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 usage as a diagnostic/status check before or alongside other QZone operations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling list helps, but the description itself offers no direct routing guidance.

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