查看北邮人论坛索引状态

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

The '查看' wording aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotation by disclosing that the index is local and that coverage limitations exist, which helps set expectations about data completeness.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the subject and lists the key output fields without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and there is no 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 that there are no parameters, there is an output schema, and annotations already indicate read-only behavior, the description is complete for practical invocation. It enumerates the status dimensions an agent would need to expect from the tool.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter meaning; it is already fully sufficient in that regard.

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 states a specific verb ('查看' / view) and a distinct resource ('本地索引状态' / local index status), listing the exact status dimensions: boards, topics, content counts, date range, source, and coverage limits. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that fetch forum content or perform searches.

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 a clear use case: call this tool when you need to inspect the local index's state and coverage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a zero-parameter status snapshot tool, the context is clear enough.

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