wake_and_bootstrap_eeclass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it triggers a real automated login, scans the entire course list, and mutates the session's permission context. What it omits is significant for a login-performing tool — required prerequisites (extension installed, Chrome running, credentials present), idempotency when called repeatedly, whether re-running re-authenticates, and failure/retry behavior.

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 dense sentence with a front-loaded bracketed label; each clause adds a distinct behavior (wake, login, scan, classify, propagate permission context). Slightly heavy for one sentence, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth, yet it never says what the call returns — whether the classified course list comes back directly or the agent must follow up with get_classified_courses — nor what happens on failure. For a bootstrap gate that other sibling tools depend on, that missing contract is a real 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 there is nothing to mis-document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, since the tool self-drives the extension and course scan.

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 compound action: wake the extension, perform automatic CAPTCHA login, scan the course list, and classify course identities as TA/instructor vs. student. The verb+resource are concrete, but the description never distinguishes this bootstrap from overlapping siblings such as ensure_chrome_eeclass_session or get_classified_courses, leaving an agent to guess which one actually performs the login and classification.

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 bracketed '首次登入引導' (first-login guidance) label and the closing clause 'ensuring subsequent operations have the correct permission context' clearly convey this is a precondition to run early in a session. However, it never names alternatives or states what to do if the extension is already awake/bootstrapped (e.g., check_extension_and_setup_status or verify_extension_mcp_sync), so there are no explicit exclusions.

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