douyin_login_status

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

Annotations supply only a title and no readOnly/destructive hints, so the description carries the burden — and it delivers the key behavioral fact that www and creator-center sessions are tracked separately, plus that account profile is returned when logged in. It does not state permissions needed, side effects, or the shape of a not-logged-in result, which keeps it below 5.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core verb first, the two session scopes parenthetically enumerated, and the return behavior appended. No filler or redundancy.

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 status check with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what comes back (account profile when logged in), which is the essential picture. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of the not-logged-in outcome and whether the two flags are returned independently.

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 disambiguate; baseline applies. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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+resource ('检查抖音登录态') and immediately qualifies scope: two independent session domains, www (browsing/search/commenting) and creator center (publishing/data). This level of detail lets an agent distinguish it from douyin_login_qrcode and douyin_logout without opening a schema.

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 usage is only implied: an agent can infer you check status before browsing, commenting, or publishing. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on what to do when a domain is not logged in (e.g., 'use douyin_login_qrcode'), and no exclusion of alternatives.

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