delivery_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the caveat that the status is local and does not mean the recipient downloaded — a genuinely useful scope limitation — but it says nothing about rate limits, staleness, or what the status transitions are.

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 compact clause with the purpose and the two disambiguating caveats front-loaded; no filler sentences at all.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the returned status actually is, and it does not — the possible status values and their meaning are absent. The anti-confusion caveat is good, but an agent still cannot interpret the response.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema gives only a UUID format/pattern, so the description must carry semantic weight. '同一 deliveryId' usefully implies the id was previously obtained from a related tool rather than being an arbitrary UUID, which is meaningful added context, but nothing is said about id validity or error behavior for unknown ids.

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?

Combines a specific verb (查询) with a specific resource (同一 deliveryId 的本地状态) and explicitly excludes file sending, which separates it from the send_file sibling. It does not, however, distinguish itself from prepare_file or file_secretary_help.

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?

'不发文件' implicitly routes the agent away from send_file toward a polling/inspection use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of the other siblings, nor any prerequisite such as needing a deliveryId previously issued by send_file/prepare_file.

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