MK 登录态检查

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that supplying termId triggers an actual authentication call rather than only a local check, but it does not describe return values, possible error states, or any side effects. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single compact sentence split by a semicolon, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by stating the local-check behavior and the termId-triggered auth behavior.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter schema is fully documented, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description explains the two checking modes reasonably well, yet it does not state what the tool returns or how validity is represented, which is a notable gap for a check operation.

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 single termId parameter is already fully described in the schema as an optional semester/class id. The description adds meaningful behavioral semantics: when termId is provided, the tool calls the authentication interface for real verification. That is a useful distinction beyond the schema text.

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 a specific action and resource: checking whether a locally saved session is valid. It also distinguishes the two modes: local-only check without termId, and actual authentication-interface verification when termId is supplied. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from nearby siblings such as mk_verify or mk_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?

The two-mode behavior is clearly implied: pass termId to perform an actual auth verification, omit it to check only the local session. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like mk_verify or mk_login_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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