paperbridge_login

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavior the annotations do not cover: it returns immediately, does not fill in passwords on the user's behalf, and does not auto-agree to the usage agreement. This human-in-the-loop, non-blocking behavior is essential for correct invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the tool's core action and then covering the required human steps, immediate return, follow-up tool, and constraints. Every clause earns its place with no redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and the annotation coverage for openness and non-destructiveness, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what will happen, what the user must do, and what to do next, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the evaluation baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: '打开试卷库专用登录窗口' (open the dedicated login window for the exam paper library). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming paperbridge_status as the follow-up checker, so an agent can tell this apart from search, download, or details without opening another schema.

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 gives clear usage context: the user completes SSO, reads and confirms the agreement, searches a course code, and then the agent should check with paperbridge_status. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use condition (e.g., if already authenticated), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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