stata_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. '检查' strongly implies a read-only inspection, and naming the project-local cache file adds useful concrete context about the data source. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, permission requirements, or behavior when the registry file is missing.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and lists its targets without filler. The inclusion of the specific cache file path is dense but relevant, and no sentence or phrase is wasted.

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 zero-parameter schema and the straightforward status-checking nature, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it inspects. It does not spell out the exact response format, but for a status/inspection tool that information is largely inferable from the listed targets.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds semantic value by explaining what the status check covers, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the concrete verb '检查' (check/inspect) and identifies three specific objects: Stata MCP server status, in-memory sessions, and session/do/log relationships recorded in .stata-mcp/cache/task_registry.json. This resource-level specificity clearly distinguishes it from siblings like stata_run or stata_session, even without naming them. It is not a tautology and tells an agent exactly what the tool inspects.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are named. The intended usage is implied by the content: call this tool to check server/session/cache status. However, it lacks explicit routing or exclusion conditions that would make this dimension stronger.

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