CC98 连接状态

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorldHint, and the description adds the key detail: the default mode stays local, while check=true actually hits the network to read the current account. That clarifies the network-cost difference between modes, though it doesn't say what is reported on failure.

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 with the primary behavior front-loaded and the flag semantics appended after the semicolon. Nothing is wasted.

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 diagnostic/status tool with no output schema, the description never hints at what is returned (login state, username, connection result, error shape). Safety is covered by annotations, but an agent can't anticipate the result payload from the text alone.

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% (the check boolean has no description), so the description must carry the meaning. It explains exactly what true triggers — reading the current account to verify direct connection and login — which makes the parameter actionable; the false case is only implied by '检查本地登录配置'.

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 action (检查本地登录配置) plus a second mode (读取当前账号以验证直连). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like cc98_read_topic and cc98_search, which fetch content, though it never names them explicitly.

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 conditional 'check=true 时' implies when to use each mode, but the description never states when to call this tool at all (e.g. before other cc98 tools, or after auth failures) nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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