Request Login Confirm Dialog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses blocking-until-answer behavior, that selecting 'No' does not discard the session, that the dialog can repeat, and that the call is rejected if the session has ended. This is high-value disclosure beyond the schema, only slightly short of fully spelling out the rejection mechanism.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by describing blocking, retry, and rejection behavior. The length is justified by the density of behavioral disclosure, with no wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema (covering the returned choice), the description is nearly complete: it covers why, when, blocking behavior, retry semantics, and failure mode. The only minor gap is not naming how to obtain the login_session_id, but given the tool's simplicity this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter description, so the description must compensate. The param login_session_id is referenced implicitly through '会话' (session) and the statement that calls are rejected when the session ends, which clarifies the parameter's role. It does not explicitly say where this id comes from, but the name is self-explanatory enough to keep this adequate.

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 action ('pops up a system dialog for the user to click Yes/No to confirm login') and its return value ('returns the user's choice'), with the '可选兜底' (optional fallback) framing positioning it against alternatives. It clearly identifies a distinct callable UI interaction but does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with (e.g., confirm_login), leaving differentiation somewhat implicit.

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?

Gives explicit context for when to use it ('when it's inconvenient to ask via conversation'), which signals this is a fallback to conversation-based confirmation (likely confirm_login). It does not name the alternative tool or specify when NOT to use it, so the guidance is clear but lacks an explicit exclusion.

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