auth_signin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'returns a JWT token' but lacks details on side effects, token format, expiration, error handling, or rate limiting. This is insufficient for a critical authentication tool.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the purpose and then the condition for use. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description should elaborate on the return value (e.g., token format, how to use it) and mention potential errors or prerequisites. The current description leaves significant gaps, especially for a tool essential for subsequent requests.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema ('Your Ara account email' and 'Your Ara account password'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 authenticates to the Ara platform using email/password and returns a JWT token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (all audit-related) by specifying its authentication purpose.

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 provides a clear condition for use: 'Required only if ARA_AUTH_TOKEN is not set.' This gives context on when to invoke it. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but sibling tools are unrelated, so it's adequate.

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