check_cookie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says "check if cookie is invalid" but does not explain what the tool does beyond that (e.g., whether it is a read-only operation, what it returns, how it determines invalidity, or if it has side effects). The description carries a minimal burden but offers no behavioral context.

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 is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it is minimal and could benefit from a bit more detail about the check outcome without breaking conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least explain what the result indicates or in what situations to expect it. The description only states the function, leaving the agent to guess what happens when the cookie is or isn't valid. The lack of return-value information is a significant gap because there is no output schema to fill in that detail.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline score of 4. Since there are no parameters, the description cannot add parameter semantics, and no additional explanation is needed.

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's function: "检测cookie是否失效" (check whether the cookie is invalid). This is a specific verb (check) and resource (cookie), and it is distinct from the sibling tools, which are all content-related operations (get comments, post comments, home feed, search notes, get note content). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. There is no mention of context that would trigger its use, such as before making authenticated requests. The only clue is the tool name and the sibling tools, but no explicit or implicit usage direction is provided.

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