扫码登录：检查状态

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent already knows this mutates state. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: the wait is implemented as a 2-second server-side poll, capped by wait_seconds, and successful login state is persisted automatically, which is consistent with the non-read-only annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core purpose first and the optional waiting behavior second; nothing is redundant. It could be marginally improved by surfacing the polling interval earlier, but there is no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description never indicates what status values come back (pending, scanned, confirmed, expired), which is exactly what a caller polling a QR login needs in order to branch. For a simple two-parameter tool it is otherwise adequate, but this return-state gap is meaningful.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining that wait_seconds actually drives server-side polling at 2-second intervals rather than just being a timeout value, which is semantic information absent from the schema.

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 verb and resource: checking QR-code login status, and clarifies the server-side wait behavior. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_login_status or explain the handoff from login_qr_start, so an agent must infer the QR flow boundary from the names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: wait_seconds lets the caller block server-side instead of polling client-side, which suggests this is called after login_qr_start. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_login_status, and no guidance on choosing wait_seconds values or retry behavior.

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