get_bgm_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a read-only status query, reports cost (free), summarizes the returned data (running, tracks, cue count), and warns that completing BGM requires a separate compose step to affect the final cut. The main omission is a fuller status enumeration or error behavior, but the key traits are well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs return contents, cost, and workflow caveat efficiently. The single dense sentence is slightly crowded but every clause earns its place; no filler is present.

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 one-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description provides a good high-level return summary and an important downstream dependency (compose_episode). It could be more explicit about possible states or empty results, but an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter, episode_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. The phrase '某集' indicates the tool operates on an episode, which together with the parameter name makes the meaning reasonably inferable, but the description does not explicitly state that episode_id is the required episode identifier.

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 states a specific verb (查/check), a clear resource (AI BGM generation status of an episode), and enumerates the exact payload contents (running flag, stored track list, cue count). This clearly differentiates it from generation triggers like generate_bgm and from downstream composition via compose_episode.

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 gives actionable context: the tool is free, reports generation state, and clarifies that a completed BGM status does not automatically enter the final cut, requiring compose_episode afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow guidance is strong.

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