status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about behavior: whether the call blocks, whether it returns progress percentages or queue positions, or whether it has rate/latency considerations. It only restates the read intent implied by '查看'.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource being inspected. It is efficient but so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool is a zero-parameter read with no output schema, so the description is the only place to convey what come back (engine health? job progress? queue depth?). It gestures at that but does not enumerate the returned fields, leaving an agent to guess at the payload.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('查看'/view) and two resources: the inference engine and the current task status. An agent can distinguish it from sibling generation/voice tools. However, 'current task status' is not qualified (which task, whose task), so scope stays slightly generic.

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 indication of when to call this versus siblings like get_generation (which also exposes task state) or how often to poll it. The purpose is self-evident enough that an agent can infer a diagnostic use, but nothing is stated explicitly.

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