get_balance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific data points retrieved (balance, refresh time, online status), which provides useful scope but no additional behavioral traits such as caching, freshness, or error behavior. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the main action and lists all returned data elements with no filler or redundant detail. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters, a comprehensive output schema, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides all necessary context. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without any further information.

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 is trivially complete. The baseline is 4 for no params, and the description does not need to explain any parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb '读取' (read) and clearly names the resources: current electricity balance, balance refresh time, and meter online status. This is distinct from the sibling tools (get_daily_energy, get_lifetime_energy, get_electricity_summary), which focus on energy consumption rather than balance, so an agent can easily tell it apart.

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 makes it clear that this tool is for balance-related queries, which implicitly distinguishes it from the energy-focused siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent can infer the correct usage.

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