Renew Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool opens an interactive login window, that it must be called a second time with confirmed=true after the user logs in, and that passing school triggers an automatic SSO redirect rather than manual popup navigation. It does not say whether the call blocks, what happens if the user never completes login, or whether it is safe to repeat.

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?

Four short blocks with the call protocol front-loaded, followed by the failure symptom that motivates the tool and the off-campus guidance. Every sentence carries actionable content; only mild redundancy between the description and the schema's school description.

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 an interactive, side-effect-heavy tool with no annotations, the description covers the workflow, the diagnostic symptom, and the SSO behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main gap is failure handling — what to do if login is never completed or the renewal fails.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the two-step confirmed=true workflow and the off-campus rationale for school, but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema properties already say; baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('重新建立知网会话' — re-establish the CNKI session) and immediately describes the two-phase call protocol. It is clearly a session-repair tool, but it never names or contrasts with the near-siblings get_login_status and open_verification_window, which an agent must choose between.

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?

Strong, concrete triggering conditions: it states that expired CNKI cookies produce no visible prompt and surface only as download failures or an '机构没有额度' message, and that this tool should be used first in that case. It also prescribes the off-campus path (pass school). No explicit exclusions or named alternative tools are given, which keeps it below a 5.

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