check_platform_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Check') and references 'saved login/cookie state', which implies local state inspection. However, it does not explain side effects, error handling, or what happens when no login exists, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and free of fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and one platform-specific nuance.

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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential purpose and hints at platform-specific behavior. However, it does not describe the return value, how to interpret auth state, or when exactly to call it relative to other operations. The lack of annotations and output schema leaves moderate gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain the 'account' parameter and only indirectly references 'platform' via 'supported live CLI adapters' and the Douyin example. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource ('saved login/cookie state') and scope ('supported live CLI adapters'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like login_platform by focusing on checking auth state rather than creating it.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for verifying saved login state before potentially publishing, which implies usage as a precondition check. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident from the verb and resource. The Douyin-specific note adds practical context.

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