open_setup

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, non-open-world, but say nothing about where the action lands. The description supplies exactly that context – the page opens locally on the user's machine – plus an important behavioral constraint: never request the user's password or token. That is real value beyond the annotations; it stops short only of describing what happens after login completes.

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: the action and its location come first, the security constraint second. No redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with zero parameters the schema burden is nil. The description covers the action, its locality, and the credential-handling rule. The only omission is when this should be invoked relative to siblings and what the agent should do after the login flow returns.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter narrative because there is nothing to parameterize; the schema is empty and complete.

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 and object ('在用户本机打开设置页' – open the setup page on the user's machine) and adds what the setup accomplishes (school-official login). The core action is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the get_* siblings, though it never names an alternative tool to differentiate against.

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?

Usage is implied: run this to get the user set up/authenticated before other tools can work, and skip credential collection. There is no explicit 'use this when… / use X instead when…' routing against siblings such as get_service_links or refresh_source, so the agent must infer the trigger condition.

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