Get Login Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: it never returns cookies, tokens, accounts, or passwords, which stops an agent from fishing for credentials. It does not disclose whether the check is purely local or triggers a browser/network call, nor any rate-limit or side-effect profile, so the disclosure is partial.

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 clauses, front-loaded with what is checked and followed by the key privacy guarantee. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the surface is small. What remains thin is the operational context: no statement of when to call it relative to renew_session or whether the call has side effects.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter commentary.

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 (检查/check) and a specific resource (CNKI 持久登录状态/persistent login status), which is enough to separate it from read-oriented siblings like search_cnki or get_paper_detail. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, renew_session, so the boundary with session management is left implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any reference to alternatives such as renew_session or open_verification_window. Usage is only inferable from the purpose itself (check status before an authenticated operation), which is the definition of implied guidance.

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