status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds real context by clarifying that the network-touching part is the live quota check against Netdisk, which explains the openWorld hint. It does not say what happens when local auth is missing (error versus status payload) or whether the remote check can fail or be slow.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the local check and qualifying the optional remote step. Nothing to trim.

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?

No, wait — scoring independently: the output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the description still leaves open what an unauthenticated result looks like and what the remote check costs. With one undocumented parameter and an ambiguous name competing with task_status, this is adequate but not complete.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry its meaning. It does explain the gist of verify_remote as 'verify the account against live Netdisk quota', but omits the default (true per schema) and any cost or failure implications of the live call.

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 names a concrete operation: checking local authentication and optionally verifying the account against live Netdisk quota. This is clearly distinct from mutation siblings and from task_status in subject matter, though it never names task_status to make the distinction 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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight check before file operations, and 'optionally' hints at the verify_remote trade-off. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus login_qr or task_status, and no guidance on when to skip the remote check.

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