uplus_check_login

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does convey the important behavioral fact that it inspects the currently attached session and is non-mutating ("check"), but says nothing about the result shape, what happens if no session is attached, or whether it navigates the browser — gaps that matter for an annotation-free tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and the scoped subject. Nothing is wasted and nothing relevant is buried.

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?

The signature is trivial, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should state what the check returns (boolean? status string? login state details) and the prerequisite that a browser session must be attached. Those omissions leave the agent guessing about the response.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter claims need correcting.

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 object: it checks whether the *attached browser session* is signed into U+. The word "check" and the subject "session" naturally contrast with the sibling uplus_login, so an agent can distinguish them, though the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a precondition check to run before uplus_* actions, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before uplus_list_courses) or that uplus_login is the follow-up when the check fails. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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