检查中传文献检索浏览器会话

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds meaningful privacy behavior (does not read or return passwords or cookies) and explains the visible-window behavior when open_login_window is true. This provides context not captured by annotations alone.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details (privacy guarantee and parameter behavior). No redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and safe behavior. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool's simplicity and existing output schema keep the description reasonably complete.

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?

Though the schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), the description explains that setting open_login_window=true keeps a visible window for login or CAPTCHA, implying the default false behavior. This adds semantic value to an otherwise bare boolean parameter.

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 checks login status for WOS, IEEE, and Tencent Docs in a persistent Chrome instance, using a specific verb and resource scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from search/download siblings by focusing on session verification rather than content retrieval.

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 implies usage for verifying sessions before search or download, and explains the open_login_window parameter for interactive login/CAPTCHA. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use before search_wos') or provide exclusion criteria.

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