jcourse_auth_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds a genuine disclosure beyond them: '不会输出 Key' guarantees the secret is never returned, and '读取当前账号' tells the agent an account identity comes back. What's missing is failure behavior (what a status looks like when the Key is invalid) — largely covered by the output schema.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the three checks and ends with the privacy guarantee. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.

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?

Return values are covered by the existing output schema and safety by the annotations, so the description needn't expand there. The one real hole is the undocumented check_remote switch, which matters because it changes whether a network request happens.

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 0% and the single parameter check_remote (default true) is never mentioned by name. The phrase '是否有效' hints that remote validity checking is involved, but the agent must guess that check_remote is what toggles local-only vs network validation, and that the default incurs a remote call.

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 set (check existence/validity, read current account) on a specific resource (local API Key / current account). Purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool in the list does authentication, so no explicit differentiation is required.

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 check before invoking the data-fetching siblings, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or what to do on failure. No alternatives are named.

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