yearning_query_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to reiterate safety. The description adds context by specifying it corresponds to two GET APIs, reinforcing read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 very brief, consisting of two short sentences and an API reference. It is concise but lacks structure and substance. Every sentence earns its place, but the description could be more informative without adding much length.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (context indicates true), the description is minimally adequate. It mentions the two endpoints and the scope ('current user'), but does not explain what the status values mean or when this tool should be used in a workflow. For a simple status-check tool, this is reasonable but not complete.

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 input schema has schema description coverage of 0%, meaning no descriptions for parameters. The description does not mention the lone parameter 'params' or its nested property 'response_format'. While the parameter name and enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to add any semantic value for the agent.

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 clearly states that the tool checks whether the query audit switch is enabled and the current user's query work order status. It uses the verb '查看' (view/check) and specifies the resource. Among sibling tools, it is distinct as it combines two status checks, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar status tools like yearning_my_orders.

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 vs alternatives such as yearning_my_orders or yearning_order_detail. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, this lack of usage direction is a significant gap.

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