szlcsc_altium_status

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a check and requires no parameters. Since there are no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It correctly indicates that it is non-destructive (check only) but does not describe what happens if the check fails (e.g., error vs. return false), nor any side effects or output format. Basic transparency is present but lacks behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently with no extraneous words. It appropriately front-loads the verb '检查' (check) and clearly specifies both sub-checks. Every character 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 the tool has 0 parameters, a simple check task, and no input schema constraints, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explain the return value behavior (output schema exists but is not described), nor does it mention what the agent should infer from the result (e.g., can we proceed with import?). With annotations absent, this gap slightly reduces completeness.

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 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by confirming the tool takes no arguments. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings beyond stating it is parameter-less, which it does implicitly.

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 states that the tool checks whether the optional altium-cruncher is installed and whether the easyeda-import subcommand is available. This is a clear verb-resource (check status) but lacks specificity on what exactly being checked means (e.g., file presence, version, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling tools like szlcsc_altium_setup or szlcsc_altium_smoke_test.

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 other altium-related tools (setup, smoke_test, review, import, etc.). It does not mention prerequisites, sequencing, or scenarios where this check is necessary (e.g., before calling import). The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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