Yunxin console login status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds real value beyond that: it lists exactly which state is returned, flags a 'write operation switch' that is important for gating mutations, and discloses the failure path (re-login prompt on expired session). It stops short of describing the response shape or whether failure is an error vs. a status field.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return contents and then the failure case. Every clause carries information; no 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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the four things returned plus the expiry behavior. Only the exact shape/typing of those values remains unspecified, which is a minor gap for a status check.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('检查云信控制台登录态') and enumerates what it surfaces (account, enterprise info, default app, write switch), which clearly separates it from the app/IM/stats siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 auth/context check, but the description never says when to call it versus calling a sibling directly, nor any exclusions. The expiry sentence describes output behavior rather than invocation guidance.

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