auth.doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates local-only behavior and the safety boundary of not accessing Xianyu, which is valuable. It does not fully elaborate on side effects or internal state changes, but the diagnostic framing mitigates that gap.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the diagnostic scope and ending with a safety qualifier. Every segment earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the purpose and a crucial boundary: it is local and does not access Xianyu. It could be slightly more explicit about when to prefer this over sibling auth tools, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description still adds useful context about what the diagnostic covers, which is more than baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb '诊断' (diagnose) and names the concrete resources: auth dependencies, login verification records, rate limiting, and circuit breaking. The '不访问闲鱼' qualifier clearly distinguishes this local diagnostic tool from siblings that make external calls.

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 a local, non-external diagnostic use and explicitly states it does not access Xianyu. However, it does not name alternatives like auth.status or auth.risk-status, nor does it provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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