start_school_service_setup

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

With only readOnlyHint=false available, the description carries real weight by disclosing side effects: it installs a component on the user's machine and opens an interactive login window, which tells the agent this is not a silent background call. It does not say whether the call blocks until login completes or returns immediately, which is the main remaining gap.

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 front-loads the trigger condition before describing behavior. The trailing "再调用看进度" is vague enough to be near-waste, but overall there is little 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what happens on the user's machine but omits the return semantics (does it return a setup handle or just an ack?) and the identity of the progress-checking tool. Enough to call it, not enough to sequence it confidently.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the service enum meanings. The description's mention of school email and attendance loosely maps to the service values but adds nothing about read_only or how the two services differ behaviorally. 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?

The description names a specific action and resource: initiating school email or attendance setup, including installing a component and opening a login window. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as start_monash_login, though it never explicitly names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

"用户要接入学校邮箱或考勤时用" gives a clear triggering condition, but the follow-up instruction "再调用看进度" refers to an unnamed tool, leaving the agent to guess which sibling to call next. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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