get_system_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns health status, but does not mention whether the optional token parameter is used for authentication, whether any side effects exist, or how health is determined. The behavior remains largely opaque beyond the basic return.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool, though it omits some detail. The structure is clean and direct.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is incomplete because it fails to explain the token parameter and provides no behavioral context. The output schema mitigates return-format uncertainty, but the agent lacks enough information to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'token' parameter at all. The schema shows it is an optional string or null, but its purpose (e.g., authentication, context) is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess how to use it.

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 '返回当前数据源与后端健康状态。' clearly states a specific verb ('返回' = returns) and resource ('数据源与后端健康状态' = data source and backend health status). This distinct purpose sets it apart from sibling tools like search_books and get_book_detail, which are book-related queries.

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?

No explicit usage guidance or alternatives are provided. The purpose implies a system health check, and sibling tools are all book-related, which makes the intended usage inferable, but the description does not state when to use this tool (e.g., 'to verify backend health') or contrast it with alternatives.

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