host_status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's '查询' is consistent with that. The description adds a vague note that the body/content is stored in a local backup, which hints at data locality but does not clearly explain tool behavior, auth needs, or response characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and starts with the action, which is good. However, the clause '正文保存在本机备份中' is cryptic and does not clearly earn its place; it may confuse more than it clarifies.

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 many host_* sibling tools and one undocumented optional parameter, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and correctly invoke the tool. The output schema and readOnly annotation reduce some burden, but missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions the 'scope' parameter, its default value, or possible values. The agent receives no semantic guidance for the only parameter the tool accepts.

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 opens with a specific verb '查询' (query) and names the resources being queried: '接管开关和固定原始恢复点' (takeover switch and fixed original recovery point). This gives a reasonably clear purpose, though it does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools such as host_preview or host_inspect, and the trailing clause about local backup is ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions sibling tools like host_preview, host_inspect, or host_set_enabled, and it gives no exclusions or decision criteria for selecting host_status.

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