agenthop_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word '看' (view) implies a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and the enumerated return contents give useful behavioral context. It does not, however, explicitly confirm it is non-mutating, mention permissions, or describe the response shape, leaving gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first, followed by a compact enumeration of the returned items. No wasted words; the density is appropriate for a status readout, though the semicolon list is slightly cramped.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the caller gets back (step, pairing code, log path, identity, address, pending invites), which compensates for the missing return definition. Given a zero-param tool, this is largely complete, with only explicit usage/alternative guidance missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 names a clear verb (看/view) and enumerates the concrete contents it reports: current step, pairing code, log location, local identity, receiving address, and pending invitations. This distinguishes it well from action-oriented siblings like agenthop_say or agenthop_send_file, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. It is a specific, resource-scoped status tool.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this to inspect the current conversation state and local identity. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many siblings (e.g. agenthop_contacts, agenthop_wait). Minimal viable guidance only.

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