pro_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds context about token storage ('记录自己的token凭证') and temporary token handling, which goes beyond the annotation defaults. No contradiction with annotations.

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 is front-loaded with the purpose ('初始化 pro API') and efficiently covers both token-setting mechanisms. No wasted words.

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 simple initialization tool with one parameter, the description covers the main usage modes but doesn't explain the return value, whether the tool must be called before all others, or how it relates to sibling tools set_token and get_token. The overlap with siblings creates an ambiguity gap.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the token parameter is for a temporary token, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks details about format, requiredness, or behavior when combined with set_token.

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 states the tool initializes the pro API, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_token and get_token by focusing on initialization context, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternatives.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: either persist a token via ak.set_token or pass a temporary token in the parameter. It implies the initialization context but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like set_token.

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