get_system_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'get' operation (read-only) and describes the kind of information returned (version, data stats, cache status). However, it does not mention any potential side effects (e.g., performing a live health probe, cost/performance implications) or auth requirements. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a returns list. Bilingual repetition (Chinese/English) adds slight redundancy but does not create bloat. It earns its place with no 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?

For a simple, zero-parameter status tool, the description is fairly complete: it names the purpose and the key output fields. An output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail the full return structure. It could mention whether the check is instantaneous or might be slow, but overall it meets a reasonable bar.

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 schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain any inputs, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. No additional parameter documentation is needed.

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: '获取系统运行状态和健康检查信息' (get system running status and health check info) and lists what it returns (system version, data statistics, cache status). It is distinct from siblings like get_storage_status or check_version, which are more specific. However, it does not explicitly call out this differentiation, so it's not a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply a general health/status check, there is no mention of edge cases, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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