meiju_login_status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is low. The description still adds a behavioral trait beyond them: it explicitly states that no phone, code, or token is returned, pre-empting the assumption that a login-status tool would surface credentials.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, with essentially no filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and covering annotations, the description supplies what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the login-flow sequencing guidance is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is no parameter surface for the description to explain, and the schema correctly declares an empty, closed object.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource/state ('whether the human has completed local login'), which clearly separates it from meiju_login (initiates the flow) and meiju_get_status (device status). The distinction is conveyed by the wording itself, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 never says when to call this tool, whether it is meant to be polled after meiju_login, or how it relates to meiju_login/meiju_logout. An agent must infer the login-flow context entirely from the name.

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