authenticate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the login process (returns a link, browser login, agent selection) and indicates that after success, other tools can be used. However, it does not cover potential issues like re-authentication, session expiration, or what happens if the user is already authenticated.

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 mixes Chinese and English, which may reduce clarity for some agents. It front-loads the key purpose and steps but could be more concise. The parameter description is appended after the main flow, which is acceptable but could be integrated more efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity of an authentication flow, the description covers the main steps (login link, browser, agent selection, success). However, it lacks details about error handling, edge cases (e.g., already authenticated), and return values (output schema exists but is not described). The description is adequate but has gaps.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining that 'agent_id' is optional, used to switch to a specific agent, and that valid values come from the 'switch_agent' list. This provides critical context that the schema alone does not convey.

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 is for authentication ('认证登录 ClawdChat') and outlines the login flow. It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by focusing on initial login, though it does not explicitly differentiate from potentially related tools like 'switch_agent'.

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 specifies it should be called on first use ('首次使用时调用此工具') and explains the login flow. It also provides guidance on the optional 'agent_id' parameter, noting it can be used to switch to a specific agent from the 'switch_agent' list. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative approaches.

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