skydemon_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers key context: the session is in-memory, credentials can come from env vars, and force overrides an existing valid session. It omits failure handling (invalid credentials, session expiry, non-interactive auth limitations).

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?

Front-loaded one-liner followed by a compact Args block; every sentence carries information. The prose is slightly clipped ('Log in once') but nothing is wasted.

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 3-param credential tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies the credential sourcing, session reuse semantics, and the force override. Return values are unspecified, but that is a minor gap for a login call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it documents all three parameters, including the login format ('user' or 'user/slot') and the SKYDEMON_LOGIN / SKYDEMON_PASSWORD env fallbacks, plus the meaning of force. This is meaningfully more than the bare schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Log in') and immediately characterizes the session lifecycle (held in memory, reused). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like skydemon_session_status or skydemon_logout to differentiate, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied: log in once, then the session is reused, and set force=true for a fresh login. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus checking session_status or how to recover from an expired session, so guidance is present but partial.

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