登录状态

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full load. It usefully discloses that it inspects saved sessions per region and returns an account name, implying a non-mutating check, but it never says what happens on an invalid session, whether a network/auth call occurs, or how failures surface.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the check action and followed by the return value. Nothing is padding, though the point about the return value could have been its own crisp clause.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should explain the return values. It only mentions the account name and never says how invalid regions are reported, so an agent cannot fully predict the response shape.

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%: the single optional 'region' parameter is fully documented with an enum and its 'omit to check all' behavior. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('检查…是否仍然有效') and resource (each region's saved session), and adds the return value (account name). That already distinguishes it from the login/logout siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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: check stored sessions to see whether login is still active. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do if a session has expired, and no named alternative such as ykt_login.

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