Verify bill readability and OA window status, then return two readiness items indicating whether read-only detection can start. Use it to check prerequisites before evidence collection.
返回两个准备项，并说明是否可以开始只读检测。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_readable | Yes | ||
| oa_window_opened | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a go/no-go judgment, but never states whether the call reads or mutates state, what the two prep items are, or any auth/prerequisite behavior. The little it does disclose is useful but far from sufficient.
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 waste and the actionable clause front-loaded. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it cannot score higher.
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 so return values need not be explained, but for a two-required-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits parameter meaning and usage context. It is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain bill_readable and oa_window_opened. Instead it only says it 'returns two preparation items,' which is ambiguous about whether these booleans are inputs it consumes or values it echoes, and adds no meaning to either flag.
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 gives a verb (返回/returns) and a loose object (两个准备项/two preparation items) plus a gating statement about read-only detection. It never names the actual resource or the two items, and it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling check_oa_readonly_readiness. Purpose is inferable but vague.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The clause 'whether read-only detection can begin' faintly implies this is a pre-flight gate, but the agent is left to guess the ordering relative to open_greencloud_oa_command or check_oa_readonly_readiness.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.