蓝奏云登录

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: success is determined by checking for 'Set-Cookie' in response headers. However, it lacks critical details: what happens on failure (error handling), whether credentials are stored/persisted, rate limits, authentication scope, or what the tool returns beyond the success check. For a login tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's action and success criterion. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (authentication tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how the login state integrates with sibling tools. For a tool that likely enables other operations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its role and behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema—it doesn't explain what 'username' and 'password' represent (e.g., LanZou account credentials), format expectations, or constraints. With 2 undocumented parameters and no description enhancement, this fails to meet the 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '调用蓝奏云登录接口' (call the LanZou cloud login interface). It specifies the verb ('调用' - call/execute) and resource ('蓝奏云登录接口' - LanZou cloud login interface), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (which are all file/link retrieval tools), so it doesn't fully distinguish its authentication purpose from their data access purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing login before using sibling tools), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The only implied usage is for authentication, but this is basic and lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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