style_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only status operation ('检查 CDP 是否连通、列出标签'), but does not describe behavior on failure, return format, or side effects. For a simple status check this is minimally adequate but lacks richer detail.

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 primary purpose and usage. Every word carries meaning, 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic function and invocation time. However, it does not specify what the tool returns or how CDP connectivity is indicated, which could leave the agent uncertain about interpreting the result. For a simple status tool, this is a minor gap.

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 description need not explain any. The baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to document.

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 checks CDP connectivity and lists tabs, with the specific verbs '检查' (check) and '列出' (list). It also adds usage context by saying it should be called first at the beginning of the closed loop. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'style_tabs', the CDP connectivity check sets it apart.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use instruction: '闭环开始时先调' (call it first at the beginning of the closed loop). This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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