zhiqi_reissue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing the hardware fingerprint comparison, quota behavior (no new quota consumed on match), and rejection on mismatch. It does not mention error/return behavior or token invalidation details, so it is not fully transparent, but the core behavioral outcome is clear.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the conditional behavior. Every clause adds necessary information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers prerequisites, success condition, and failure path. It is almost complete, but it omits what the tool returns on success (e.g., identity code or confirmation), which would help an agent handle the result in a multi-step workflow.

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 0%, so the description must explain 'reissueToken', and it does: the token is described as a one-time reissue credential obtained from the platform web client. It does not specify token format or validity details, but for a single-string token the description provides sufficient semantic grounding beyond the bare schema.

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: reissuing identity on a same-device reinstall using a one-time web-obtained credential. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'zhiqi_register' by specifying the fingerprint-match condition under which registration is not used.

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 gives a concrete precondition: the agent must first obtain a one-time reissue credential from the platform web client. It also provides an explicit when-not instruction: if the hardware fingerprint mismatches, the request is rejected and the agent should switch to registering a new identity, which aligns with the sibling 'zhiqi_register'.

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