Check Ruishu 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 safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it inspects the current page in place and does not reload, which tells the agent it is non-disruptive and scoped to the active page.

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?

Two compact fragments, front-loaded with the tool type and then the inspected artifacts. No redundant or filler wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough scope to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the return shape or how to interpret the signals, but with no output schema that is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and it correctly focuses on what the probe inspects.

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 ('Inspects') and enumerates the exact artifacts: active domain, URL, $_ts parameters, and Ruishu Cookie signals. It is clearly a diagnostic read, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_intercepted_traffic or init_ruishu_hook.

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 phrase 'Diagnostic Probe' and 'without reloading' imply when it is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is for checking current Ruishu state rather than initializing or navigating.

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