login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: opening a browser, guiding user interaction, and automatically saving cookies. It does not cover failure modes or implications of repeated logins, but the disclosed traits are informative and accurate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the explicit purpose, and every clause adds value (interaction method, cookie persistence). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 login tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core flow and side effect (cookie saving). It could mention what happens if already logged in or how to verify success, but the provided information is sufficient for basic use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (timeout) with a detailed description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already fully explains the parameter, reaching the baseline of 3.

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 action (login) and the resource (小红书/Xiaohongshu), and further specifies the interaction mode (browser window, QR/password) and outcome (saving cookies). This differentiates it from siblings like check_login_status, which only checks state.

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 implies this is a prerequisite for other tools by mentioning cookies for later use, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or contrast it with check_login_status. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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