fgui_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full responsibility. It does disclose a read-only operation ('读取') and the key non-waking behavior ('不主动唤醒编辑器'), which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'bridge heartbeat' entails, how it behaves when the editor is not running, or any other edge cases, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral caveat. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter status tool.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the description covering purpose and the critical 'does not wake' behavior, it is fairly complete. However, it could provide a bit more context about what 'bridge heartbeat' represents or how this tool relates to other status checks, preventing a perfect score.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 reads ('读取') local FairyGUI project selection and bridge heartbeat, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not actively wake the editor, which sets it apart from tools like fgui_ping or fgui_get_project.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement '不主动唤醒编辑器' implies it is a safe non-intrusive status check, but there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios. This is insufficient for helping an agent decide between fgui_status and related tools.

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