dsh_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does signal a read-only query and tells what the payload contains, which is the most important behavioral fact here. However, it says nothing about latency, whether the status is cached, or how recently-it-is-fresh the 'recent turn result' is, which matters for an agent polling state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste — the qualifier '轻量' leads and the returned fields follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is exactly the gap it needs to fill for a one-parameter query tool. Only the freshness/latency dimension of the status snapshot is left unstated.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already documents that conversation_id comes from dsh_start or dsh_list. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('轻量状态查询') and enumerates the exact fields returned (liveness, busy flag, pending approval count, last turn result), which is more precise than the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like dsh_get or dsh_read, so an agent still has to infer the difference.

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 word '轻量' implies this is the cheap first-look call, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over dsh_get or dsh_read, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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