get_login_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup the burden is light. It usefully discloses the return fields (user_id, nickname) and the underlying OneBot 11 action, yet says nothing about auth prerequisites, rate limits, or failure behavior when no account is logged in.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource. The two trailing parentheses (return fields, OneBot action name) add some value but are slightly redundant padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does so by naming user_id and nickname. For a trivial no-argument read, nothing critical is missing, though error/empty-state behavior is unaddressed.

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. The parenthetical return-field note describes output rather than input and does not mislead about parameters.

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+resource: retrieve the currently logged-in QQ account info, and even names the returned fields (user_id, nickname). It is unambiguous in isolation, but does not differentiate from the sibling list_qq_accounts, which could also surface account data.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The sibling set contains list_qq_accounts, switch_qq_account, and login_new_qq_by_qrcode, so an agent gets no help deciding when this single-account lookup is the right call versus those.

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