phone_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the tool is pinned to a pre-bound device, will not fail over to another device, and surfaces setup instructions when unconfigured — real context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core resource (pinned device status) is front-loaded and the caveats follow immediately.

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 parameters, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what an agent needs to decide and call: pinned scope, no auto-selection, and unconfigured behavior. It stops short of what a returned status actually looks like, which keeps it from a 5.

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 schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with that.

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) plus resource (已固定绑定的安卓手机连接状态), which is clearly distinct from the app/action siblings like phone_open_app and phone_action. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away to, keeping it just below a 5.

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 covers one precondition (when unconfigured, it prompts the setup method) and one important constraint (it will not automatically select another device), which implies this is a pre-flight status check. However, it never states when to call this versus phone_observe or phone_apps, so usage context remains implied.

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