complete_qr_login

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with that – it says credentials are retrieved and written locally, confirming a local write side effect. It adds that the call polls QR status, but does not clarify whether it blocks/loops until success, how long it waits, or what credentials are stored where.

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?

The description is short and front-loads the core action, but the two fragments (Chinese action phrase and English parenthetical) partially overlap and partly conflict, so it is compact without being cleanly structured.

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 described, and the single parameter is fully covered. The remaining gap is behavioral: the polling/blocking nature of the completion and the relationship to the start_qr_login/get_login_status pair are not fully clarified, leaving a simple auth flow tool only minimally specified.

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%, so the single key parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning about the key beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 conveys a verb+resource combination ('取回凭据并写入本地' – retrieve credentials and write locally) tied to finishing a login flow, which separates it from start_qr_login. However, the parenthetical '(finish QR code login, poll QR status)' mixes completion and polling semantics, muddying whether this tool finishes the login or merely checks status – the latter being the job of get_login_status.

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 indirectly through the parameter description ('the key returned by start_qr_login'), and even that lives in the schema, not the description. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus start_qr_login or get_login_status, and no exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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