meiju_login

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only yet non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no SMS is sent, no contact with Meiju occurs, and an existing login is reused. Those disclosures matter for a tool whose name implies an authentication side effect. Remaining gaps are minor, e.g. session lifetime or what invalidates the local page.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the human-handling constraint. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values like login_url need not be documented, and the description still names that field to tell the agent what to surface. Slightly incomplete in that it doesn't indicate the follow-up path for checking or completing login via meiju_login_status.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to compensate for and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no text on argument syntax.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it starts or reuses a local login page. The added 'does not itself send SMS or contact Meiju' cleanly separates it from an outbound authentication action. It stops short of naming its siblings (meiju_login_status, meiju_logout) to disambiguate further.

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?

Gives clear operating context: show login_url to the human, never request phone/OTP in chat, and reuse an existing login rather than starting a new one. It doesn't explicitly say what to do when a login already exists (e.g., check meiju_login_status first) or name the sibling that covers that path.

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