get_login_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It transparently states the tool checks login status and explicitly guarantees it does not return sensitive information, addressing a key behavioral concern. However, it does not mention side effects or other traits like rate limits, but for a read-only check, this is sufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a critical behavioral guarantee. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and a key behavioral trait. The presence of the output schema means return value details are not required in the description, so completeness is high for a simple status check.

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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Per guidelines, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate.

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 checks the CNKI persistent login status, using a specific verb ('检查') and resource ('持久登录状态'). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly stating it never returns sensitive info (Cookie, tokens, accounts, passwords), which sets it apart from potential siblings that might handle credentials.

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 does not explicitly state when or when not to use this tool. It implies it should be used to verify login status before other operations, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. Given the simple nature, the context is adequate but not explicit.

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