Print Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers very little: it does not say whether this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, whether status is final or transitional, whether repeated polling is expected, or what states can be returned. Only the bare intent of the query is disclosed.

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 and the core intent front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than polished 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?

An output schema exists and parameter documentation is complete, so return shape and ID semantics need not be repeated. What remains missing, given a status-polling tool, is workflow context such as when to call it relative to the print_* siblings and whether to poll.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("打印时返回的 Content ID"), so the schema already explains its origin and meaning. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, which is acceptable at the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

"查询一张小票是否已经出纸" states a specific verb (query) and a specific object (whether a receipt has been dispensed), which is clearly a status read rather than a print action. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the print_* siblings through the verb, but never names them or explicitly contrasts the intent.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance: it does not say this should be called after a print_* tool, whether it must be polled repeatedly, or when to stop. The only hint that content_id originates from a prior print call lives in the schema, not the description.

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