get_settings_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read-only operation. The description adds context by noting the tool is built-in and cannot be turned off, and specifies the exact information it returns (reasons, configuration path, next steps). This goes beyond basic metadata without contradicting annotations.

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 key context (built-in, cannot be disabled) followed by the functional output. Every word adds value—no fluff or repetition—making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 zero-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does (returns status info), when it applies (restricted mode), and what content it returns (reasons, path, next steps). It doesn't mention return format, but that's not required given the simplicity and the tool's purpose. The sibling tool is not referenced, but the name difference is self-explanatory.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per guidelines. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed. It fully compensates for the absence of parameters by explaining the tool's output focus, which is sufficient.

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: it returns reasons for not entering business mode, configuration path, and next steps in restricted mode. It uses a specific verb ('返回' meaning 'returns') and resource ('settings status'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'open_settings' which performs a different action (opening settings).

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 specifies the context for use: '受限模式下' (in restricted mode), indicating when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it. The sibling tool's name 'open_settings' contrasts with the status-returning purpose, implicitly guiding selection.

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