cnki_login

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that a visible Playwright browser will be opened and that the user must manually complete login, indicating an interactive operation. It also mentions detecting campus network permissions, which provides insight into the tool's decision-making. This is useful information not present in the annotations alone.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action ('打开可见 Playwright 浏览器') and clearly communicates the login wait. There is no redundancy or 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?

The description is reasonably complete for a login tool with an output schema. It explains the core workflow (open browser, detect permissions, wait for login). It does not detail the various login methods or post-login behavior, but these are covered by parameter descriptions and the output schema. However, it could benefit from mentioning the session impact or what happens after login.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with clear explanations for method, profile, timeout_seconds, and remote_access_url. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already covers all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it opens a visible Playwright browser, detects campus network permissions, and waits for the user to manually complete account/institution login. This is a specific action (open browser and login) with a clear resource (CNKI login), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like search, download, and session status.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or reference sibling tools like cnki_session_status or cnki_search. The usage context is implied (login is needed) but not explicitly stated.

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