auth_status

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meaningfully addresses the main safety concern of an auth-related tool: '不返回或显示任何 Cookie' (does not return or display any Cookie). This reassures the agent the call is safe and won't leak credentials. The only gap is that it doesn't describe what the successful response contains.

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 compact sentence front-loads the purpose and appends the safety qualifier. There is no redundancy, no restatement of the tool name, and every clause earns its place.

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, the description covers purpose, platform scope, and the key safety behavior. The only real gap is the return format — there is no output schema, so an agent doesn't know whether the result is a boolean, enum, or object. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission rather than a critical one.

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 schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; per the 0-parameter baseline, a 4 applies. The description's no-Cookie clause is behavioral information, not parameter semantics, and the schema already fully covers the (empty) argument surface.

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 uses a specific verb (检查/check) and resource (登录状态/login status), and further narrows scope to LeetCode 中国站 (China site). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like login and logout, which mutate auth state, and get_problem/get_submissions_by_date, which retrieve other data.

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 role of the tool — verifying whether a session exists — is implied by the description and the sibling set (login/logout), but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus alternatives ('use login if no session', 'call before authenticated requests'). An agent can infer the usage, but nothing is stated outright.

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