dashscope_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only inspection action ('查看') and the important privacy trait that API Key is not included. It does not discuss side effects or rate limits, but for a status tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 states the resource and the key exclusion without filler. 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?

For a parameterless status/config tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, the operation, and the privacy exclusion. No additional usage or output detail is necessary.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no param-specific detail, which is acceptable.

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?

Description uses a specific verb '查看' and resource '当前模型与限制配置' to identify exactly what the tool does. It also explicitly excludes API Key, adding scope precision. This clearly distinguishes it from the media generation/recognition siblings.

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 implies the tool is a status/config inspection endpoint, but it does not state when to call it relative to recognize/generate siblings or any alternatives. No exclusions or alternate tools are named, so usage context is left to inference.

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