MK 登录状态

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state machine (idle/running/success/failed/timeout/cancelled) and the key operator behavior (prompt the user to finish captcha/scan in the popup browser), which is genuinely useful. It does not say the call is read-only/non-mutating, whether polling is rate-limited, or what an agent should do on timeout/failed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste: the first front-loads what is queried and the full result vocabulary, the second gives the one action the agent must take. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the status values as the return vocabulary, which is the essential missing piece. It is nearly complete for a trivial no-arg read, minus guidance on failure/timeout handling and polling cadence.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 (查询) and resource (浏览器登录流程状态) and enumerates the possible state values, so an agent knows exactly what it returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling mk_check_login, which by name appears to cover overlapping ground.

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: 'running 时提示用户…' tells the agent what to do once a run is in flight, which suggests this is a polling tool used after mk_login_start. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of how it relates to mk_check_login or mk_login_cancel.

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