login_qr

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important context: interactive phone confirmation, no cookie return, and login reuse unless forced. It does not fully clarify what force=True does to an existing login beyond bypassing reuse.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and platform, and every sentence contributes useful information. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 annotations covering safety traits and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies the key operational details: platform, required user interaction, cookie behavior, and force semantics. Minor gaps remain around exact force behavior and non-macOS alternatives.

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 only parameter, force, has no schema description, but the description compensates by explaining that existing working login is reused unless force=True. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though the exact side effect of forcing a new login is not detailed.

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 a specific action and resource: opening a local QR-login terminal on macOS for Baidu Netdisk. It is clearly distinct from the sibling file and transfer tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other possible authentication approaches.

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?

It gives clear usage context: macOS only, user must scan and confirm in the phone app, and other systems receive a manual login command. It also explains that an existing working login is reused unless force=True, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative auth tools.

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