hdu_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '登录' (login) implies authentication and potential session creation, the description doesn't disclose what happens after login, whether sessions persist, what permissions are granted, or any rate limits/constraints. For an authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?

The description is extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what successful login enables, what the return value contains, or what subsequent operations might be available. The combination of authentication complexity and lack of structured documentation requires more descriptive context than provided.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation ('密码' for password, '学号' for student ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '登录杭电教务处系统' clearly states the action (login) and target system (Hangzhou Dianzi University academic affairs system), providing a specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_course_schedule' which appears to be a different operation entirely, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when authentication is needed, or relationship to the sibling tool. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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