检查记录接入状态

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, but the description adds real value beyond them: what is returned (total count and last-received timestamp) and the important interpretation trap that an empty ledger does not prove no activity. It also bounds the scope by stating it does not read chats or prove other sessions are onboarded.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only purpose and return shape, followed by the exclusions and the empty-ledger caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 input parameters, no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it describes the returned fields and the main misinterpretation risk. The only minor gap is that it never clarifies the scope of the ledger (global vs. current session) or the time format of the timestamp.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids wasting space on non-existent inputs.

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 (只读检查) plus the exact resources (采用账本 and 插件调用账本) and even summarizes the return payload (总数与最近接收时间). It implicitly separates itself from the write-side siblings record_skill_use/record_plugin_calls, but never names query_usage, so the boundary with the closest read sibling is not explicit.

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 '不写测试事件' clause implies this is for verification rather than emitting events, and the empty-ledger caveat guides interpretation. However, no sibling is named as the alternative for writing events or for detailed usage breakdowns, so the when-to-use-vs-what guidance is only implied.

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