等待拼多多登录（人工）

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it opens a real mobile web page, blocks waiting for a human, and never auto-fills credentials. The untrusted-content clause is meaningful context for an open-world browser tool. It omits what happens on timeout or how long it waits, which holds it below 5.

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 short sentences, both front-loaded with the action first and the safety constraint second. Nothing is redundant, though the prompt-injection warning is somewhat generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose entire behavior is 'wait', the description never says whether the call blocks until completion, whether it times out, or what the agent should do if the user never logs in — a real gap 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure — the human, not the agent, supplies the login.

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 names a specific verb and resource in '打开拼多多移动网页' plus the added scope '等待用户完成登录/验证', so the agent knows this is an interactive login-wait tool, clearly distinct from the read-only siblings like pdd_search and pdd_read_item. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, which keeps it from 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 implied: call this when a login/verification session is needed before other pdd_* tools work. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to pdd_status (check state first?) or pdd_resume, and no stated prerequisite flow.

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