get_csrf_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the returned token is a login credential that must not be leaked, which is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, expiry/reuse behavior, or when the token becomes invalid.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the one behavioral caveat that matters. No filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema getter the definition is minimally workable, but the agent is left guessing what the token is for, how long it lives, and where it is consumed. The sensitive-credential note is the only completeness-relevant content provided.

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 there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a no-argument tool applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 and resource ('取 CSRF Token（bkn）'), which is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_login_info and get_cookies because the resource is named precisely, though it does not explicitly contrast itself against those closely related credential tools.

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 guidance on when to call this tool, what it is needed for, or which alternatives (get_cookies, get_login_info) exist. The only instruction is a security warning, not a usage condition, so an agent must infer the context entirely.

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