cx_session_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the check works by reading the personal-space homepage, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention prerequisites like valid cookies or failure behavior. For a status-check tool this is reasonable but not comprehensive.

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 leads with the core purpose and adds the determining mechanism in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter check with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. The only notable gap is explicit usage guidance, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already reflects this with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 states a specific verb ('检查'/'check') and resource (Chaoxing login state), and the parenthetical clarifies the mechanism by reading the personal-space homepage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cx_login, cx_logout, and cx_import_cookies.

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 intended use is implied by the name and description: verify whether the existing session is valid. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call it, such as before other operations, or when to prefer login/import_cookies/logout instead, leaving some inference to the agent.

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