cnki_session_status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact statuses checked (accessibility, login, and CAPTCHA), which is more detailed than the tool name alone. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's purpose with no redundant words. It front-loads the action verb and clearly lists the three aspects checked, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple status-check tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the core functionality precisely, while the output schema and annotations fill in structural details. It could mention when to use it, but that is already accounted for in the usage guidelines dimension.

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, profile, is fully documented in the schema with a clear description ('要检查的浏览器身份名称'). The description itself does not add parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no extra context beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb '检查' (check) and clearly identifies the resource: CNKI accessibility, institution/account login status, and CAPTCHA status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like login, search, or download, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cnki_login or cnki_search. It simply states what it does without mentioning scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., 'use before login'), leaving the agent without decision support.

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