yupao_check_messaging_session

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral guarantees beyond them: it does not return credentials, does not read chats, and does not send messages. These negative guarantees are exactly the context an agent needs to trust a call with openWorldHint=true, though return behavior is not described.

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 dense sentence with two clauses, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with the safety scope. No filler, nothing repeated.

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 output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never says what the check returns (e.g., a boolean availability flag, an error, a status field). The negative disclosures are strong, but the positive result shape is missing for a diagnostic tool whose value is entirely in its answer.

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 for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter text is needed.

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+resource: check whether Yupao can supply IM login material, with an explicit scope limit (no credentials returned). It does not name or differentiate from the sibling yupao_check_session, leaving the agent to infer the distinction, so it stops short of 5.

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 phrasing '核对...能否提供 IM 登录资料' implies a preflight check before messaging, and '未登录 SDK' hints at a prerequisite state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as yupao_check_session or yupao_prepare_message, so the 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.