learning_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that summary is a bounded (有界) output while full preserves complete state, which tells the agent about output size. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what the status contains.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, then the parameter guidance. No wasted words.

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 read-only status tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter behavior adequately. Nothing critical is missing, though richer behavioral detail would help.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does well: it explains that view=summary yields a bounded debug summary, and that omitting view or setting full retains the complete state, clarifying the meaning of the single optional enum parameter beyond the bare enum names.

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?

States a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (本项目状态/this project's status), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool in the list is a status tool, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but the description also doesn't mention alternatives.

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?

Tells the agent when to use each mode: use view=summary for debugging (bounded output), omit view or use full to retain complete status. This is clear usage context, though it doesn't state when-not-to-use or name a specific alternative tool.

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