xhs_check_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool validates the local login state and, when logged in, returns the nickname and refreshes the login state. This explicitly reveals a side effect (refreshing the login state), which is valuable. It does not mention failure behavior or edge cases, but for a simple tool this is reasonable.

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, front-loaded with the main action ('检查小红书登录状态'), followed by concise details about validation and the success response. Every phrase adds meaningful information, with no redundant or verbose language.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description does not specify what happens when the login state is invalid or what the exact return value structure is. It mentions returning the nickname when logged in but omits the failure case. This leaves the agent with some ambiguity about the tool's full behavior, making it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add. The tool's behavior is fully described without requiring parameter details.

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 a specific verb ('检查' = check) and a clear resource (小红书登录状态 = Xiaohongshu login status). It explicitly states the tool's function: validating locally saved login state and returning the account nickname if valid, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like xhs_login and xhs_logout.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear, implying it should be used to verify login status before other operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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