Login

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the call is interactive, it returns an authorization URL rather than completing auth, the code is one-time, and credentials must never be requested from the user. It omits token/session lifetime and what logout/whoami do to the resulting session.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the '[交互式]' marker and the operation, followed by the flow and the safety rule. No filler sentences.

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 spelled out, and the description still explains the essential interaction loop and hand-off to submit_auth_code. What's missing is only the session/profile persistence behavior implied by the 'profile' parameter.

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 100% and every parameter (host, port, scheme, profile, tls_insecure, allow_insecure_http) is documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('发起 OAuth 2.0 + PKCE 登录') and marks it as interactive, which distinguishes it from the surrounding system/file/app tools. It also names the follow-up sibling submit_auth_code, so an agent can place it in the auth flow without opening any schema.

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 lays out a concrete two-step sequence: call login, open the returned URL in a browser, confirm, then submit the code via submit_auth_code. It adds an explicit 'when not' behavioral rule (do not ask the user for NAS credentials), though it doesn't say when to prefer this over e.g. whoami to check existing auth state.

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