paperbridge_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's added value is the note that PaperBridge uses an independent per-user session, which tells the agent the status is caller-specific rather than global. It says nothing about polling cadence, whether concurrent login attempts matter, or what the returned progress represents — meaningful gaps for a tool whose whole purpose is watching login progress.

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, no filler, with the resource and the session caveat front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of detail about what the agent will get back. It identifies the subject (login status and progress) but never describes what those fields look like or their possible states, leaving the agent to guess on the return value. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden and 4 is the baseline. The description correctly implies all state is resolved from the caller's session rather than from arguments.

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 (检查) plus resource (登录状态和登录进度) scoped to 西浦图书馆历年试卷库, so the agent knows this is a status read rather than a login action. It does not name or contrast with the sibling paperbridge_login, which is the tool it is most easily confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. The word 进度 implies polling during login, but the description never says to call this while paperbridge_login runs, nor what to do with the result. Usage is only faintly inferable from the purpose statement.

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