uno_auth

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuine context beyond the schema — the live auth state (未登录) and the fact that other tools are blocked until this runs — but it never explains how login actually works, whether credentials or a browser flow are required, or what the result looks like.

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?

Short and front-loaded: identity, then the blocking state, then the call to action. No wasted sentences, though the emoji-laden formatting adds noise rather than information.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema auth gate the description covers the essential precondition and current state. It still leaves open what a successful login entails (credential source, redirect, session persistence) and what happens after logout, which matters for an authentication tool.

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% and the enum values are fully documented in the schema itself, so the description's operation list is largely redundant. It also adds nothing about the default or the meaning of logout, and actually lists fewer actions than 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?

It states a specific verb+resource (authentication management) and enumerates the operations (login, status), making it instantly distinguishable from siblings like uno_call_tool or uno_search_tools. It loses a point for omitting logout from the listed operations even though the schema's enum includes it, creating a small internal mismatch.

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?

"请调用此工具完成认证后才能使用其他工具" gives an explicit prerequisite condition — call this before the other tools. It supplies a clear when-to-use context without naming alternatives, which is reasonable for a gating auth tool.

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