发布环境自检

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: read-only paths go over pure HTTP while write operations require browser readiness, and the call returns remediation guidance. It does not disclose the cost/side effect of verify_login opening a real browser (time, resource use), which is the main gap.

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 dense sentences that are front-loaded with what is checked, followed by the actionable interpretation of each flag. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return semantics; it does cover the two critical booleans (ready, browser_ready) and mentions remediation guidance. It leaves unaddressed what other diagnostic fields (cookie/driver detail, guidance structure) appear in the response, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter verify_login is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description never mentions verify_login and adds no meaning (e.g., that it slows the check or opens a browser) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names the specific verb (检查/self-check) and the concrete resources it verifies: cookies, browser driver, and backend reachability. It also states that it returns remediation guidance (补齐指引), so an agent knows this is a diagnostic/readiness gate rather than a data-retrieval tool, clearly distinguishing it from the login_qimao / set_qimao_cookies siblings.

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?

Explains the practical consequence of each result flag — 'ready=true 时列表/统计类工具即可用' and 'browser_ready=true 时写操作才可用' — which effectively tells the agent when the sibling tools are safe to call. It stops short of an explicit instruction such as 'call this before any write operation', so guidance is strong but implied rather than prescriptive.

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