login_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns login status, account, sepp-auth expiry, and default user info, which gives the agent a concrete expectation of the output. It does not mention side effects (none expected for a read-only status check) and does not contradict any annotations (since none exist). The only minor gap is lack of explicit side-effect or permission notes, but the described behavior is unambiguous.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action 'view current login status' and then enumerates the specific pieces of information returned. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 that the tool takes no parameters, has a provided output schema (so return format is covered), and the description explicitly lists the returned information, the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly. There are no missing operational details or ambiguities.

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 has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none are needed; it correctly implies that no input is required. The schema already defines an empty object, so the description need not elaborate.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (current login status), and includes specific details such as account, sepp-auth expiration time, and default user info. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_users or query_my_defects, which target different resources.

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 usage: use this when you need to check login status or retrieve default user information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intent is clear but not explicitly framed as a decision guide.

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