qr_login_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well: it discloses the side effect of writing cookies to a file when cookies_path is provided, and specifies what is returned on confirmed. It could note failure/expiry behavior, but the core behaviors an agent must know are covered.

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 compact sentences with no waste. The state enum is front-loaded first, then the return behavior and optional side effect. Every clause earns its place.

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 low complexity and no output schema, it covers the main flows: state values, the confirmed return value, and the optional file-save side effect. It doesn't describe the exact shape of the non-confirmed responses or error handling, but for a simple poll tool this is near-complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for cookies_path (triggers saving to file) but says nothing about where qrcode_key comes from or its format, which an agent would need to know to chain this with qr_login_start. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (查询/query) and resource (扫码登录状态/QR login status), and enumerates the three possible states (waiting/scanned/confirmed) so an agent knows exactly what to expect. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling qr_login_start as the polling counterpart without needing to open either schema.

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 context is implied: this is the polling step after starting a QR login, so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it never explicitly names qr_login_start as its prerequisite or the alternative, and gives no guidance on polling cadence or when to stop polling versus fall back to other auth approaches.

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