check_login_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the key side effect of automatically opening a browser window for manual login if not logged in. It also mentions the return format. However, it does not clarify whether the tool blocks until login completes or times out, which is a minor gap.

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 concise with three short sentences plus a return line. Every sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the function, describing the automatic behavior, and indicating the output format. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the core functionality and side effect. It could be improved by explicitly linking to sibling tools as a prerequisite, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not add parameter-specific information but that is unnecessary. It provides context about the return value format, which is beneficial but not part of parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking Xiaohongshu login status and determining whether manual login is needed. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_search_task' or 'scrape_single_note' by focusing on authentication rather than data operations.

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 description implies the tool should be used to verify login status before performing other tasks, and it explains the automated browser opening when not logged in. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites, leaving some implicit inference.

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