get_publish_status

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the '异步' (async) context, signaling that the status may not be immediately available and polling may be expected—a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It is consistent with the annotation hints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every element contributes meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple scope (one required parameter), rich annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context such as return format or error handling is necessary here.

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 schema has one parameter, publish_id, with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description explicitly states '按 publish_id' (by publish_id), which clarifies that the parameter is the lookup key for the status query. This adequately compensates for the schema gap for a single self-explanatory parameter.

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 uses a specific verb '查询' (query) and resource '异步发布状态' (async publish status), clearly stating the tool's function. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_mass_status or get_published_article.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states only the action, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used for checking publish status after an async publish operation, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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