bot_info

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete informational content an agent will receive (mock-mode flag, gateway connectivity, pending-message backlog). The query verb implies a side-effect-free read, though permissions and any side effects are never stated explicitly. For a parameterless diagnostic read this is adequate 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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is queried and the fields exposed, the second supplies the use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless info tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete—it enumerates the return content that the missing output schema would otherwise supply (mock mode, gateway status, pending count) and gives the troubleshooting context. Only explicit read-only/no-side-effect wording is absent.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to elaborate. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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 (查询/query) and resource (the QQ bot's own info and bridge status), then enumerates the exact fields returned: identity, mock mode, gateway connection, pending message count. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools send_private_message and fetch_messages, which handle message I/O rather than self-diagnostics.

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?

"用于排查配置问题" gives a clear context for using the tool (configuration troubleshooting), which is more than nothing. However it names no alternatives and gives no when-not conditions or prerequisites, so the guidance stays at the implied-usage level.

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