kuaishou_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (checking cookie validity) but does not disclose what constitutes 'valid', whether it makes a network request, what error conditions exist, or what side effects (e.g., session refresh) might occur. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy; it is appropriately minimal for such a simple 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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which presumably defines return values), the description covers the primary purpose. However, it lacks critical contextual details such as behavioral prerequisites, response format specifics, or failure modes. The absence of any annotation makes it only minimally complete.

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 input schema has a single 'account' parameter with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'Kuaishou account cookie' but does not explicitly define whether 'account' refers to the cookie string itself, an account ID, or a credential object. Since the description does not clarify the parameter semantics, agents must rely on inference, which is risky.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Check', the resource ('Kuaishou account cookie'), and the intended outcome ('is valid'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling check tools for other platforms (xiaohongshu, bilibili, douyin) by naming the specific platform.

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 implies the tool is used to validate a Kuaishou cookie, which is clear enough for the main use case. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., other check tools) or mention any preconditions like needing a logged-in account or cookie format. There is no exclusionary guidance.

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