Dossier Auth Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no credentials are returned, which is a security-relevant trait, but it omits whether the tool performs network requests, requires authentication, or has side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and one key behavioral caveat without any wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple status-check tool.

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, a complete input schema, an output schema that covers return values, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and a security note. It falls short only on usage context and deeper operational behavior, which are minor for this type of read-only query.

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%, and the schema fully documents the optional profile parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb (查询/query) and resource (本地登录与在线状态/login and online status) scoped to the NotebookLM upstream. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling dossier_status, so the agent must infer the distinction from the name.

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 states what the tool checks but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like dossier_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is left entirely to inference.

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