guided_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the automated workflow (opening Chrome, navigating, detecting login, harvesting) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing cookies), error handling, or permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses short, clear sentences in Chinese with no wasted words. Perfect length for the tool's simplicity.

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 (2 params, no nested objects, has output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the entire workflow. However, it doesn't mention the output schema or what happens on failure, but the existence of an output schema reduces the burden.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for either parameter (port and platform). It does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

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 purpose: open a browser, navigate to login page, detect login, and harvest cookies. It uses specific verbs (打开, 导航, 收割) and specifies the resource (浏览器, 登录页, Cookie). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like harvest_cookies and check_cookies.

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 implies usage context (to login to a platform and harvest cookies) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The workflow is clear, but no exclusions or sibling differentiation are mentioned.

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