xinchao_settle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a manual trigger for an automatic process, but it does not describe what 'settlement' entails, potential side effects, safety considerations, or whether it is idempotent. The behavioral impact remains unclear.

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 short sentence that conveys the core action and caveat in a compact, front-loaded manner. There is no redundancy or 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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It states what it does and the automatic context, but it lacks details about what settlement affects, when manual triggering is appropriate, or what consequences follow. More context would improve usability.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (as none exist), and the schema is empty, which is consistent. No meaning beyond the schema is required.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'manually trigger status settlement' (手动触发状态结算), with a specific verb ('trigger') and resource ('status settlement'). It also notes that settlement is normally automatic, which adds a scope qualifier. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though 'settle' is distinct from 'context', 'event', 'status', and 'mood'.

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 'usually automatic' implies this tool is a manual override, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. It gives context for manual use but lacks actionable guidance on choosing between tools.

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