Login no SIGAA

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the login handles an interstitial 'Aviso de Logon', that the session is stored in memory on the MCP server, and that it is reused automatically. It does not cover failure behavior or session expiration, but the disclosed stateful behavior goes beyond a simple 'logs in' statement.

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?

A single well-constructed sentence that immediately states the action, provides the resource context, mentions the interstitial handling, and explains the key session-reuse detail. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter authentication tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies required inputs, explains the session flow, and distinguishes the tool's role among siblings. The main omission is what the tool returns on success or failure, especially since no output schema is provided, but this is a minor gap given the tool's primary role.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds nothing beyond what the property descriptions say, which is acceptable under the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Autentica'), the target resource ('SIGAA UFRPE'), and the required credentials (usuário e senha), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also explains the session handling, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that operate on authenticated data.

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 conveys that authentication is performed once and the resulting session is automatically reused by other tools, implying that users do not need to call other tools with tokens. It does not explicitly state that this should be called before using the other sigaa tools or what to do on failed authentication, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent.

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