check_token

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 adds genuine context — automatic renewal within the 7-day window and the re-authorization fallback — which helps the agent interpret results. Still, the tool's own operational traits (read-only, no side effects) are only implied by the verb '查看' rather than stated.

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 compact clauses front-load the core purpose and then add only high-value lifecycle facts. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema check tool this is nearly complete: the description states what is reported (remaining days) and explains the surrounding token policy. It could add a brief note on the exact return format, but nothing an agent needs to call the tool is missing.

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 is empty (0 parameters, 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies: no parameter ambiguity exists, and the description confirms the tool only inspects token state.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — '查看访问令牌剩余有效天数' (check the remaining valid days of the access token) — so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. The 60-day expiry and auto-renewal context helps place it in the token lifecycle and implicitly set it apart from siblings like refresh_token, though it never names the alternatives.

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 lifecycle information ('60 天过期', '剩余 7 天内自动续期', '彻底过期则只能重新授权') implies when checking token health matters and hints that renewal is handled automatically. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus refresh_token or get_publishing_limit — no direct exclusions or alternative routing.

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