guard_logout

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description goes beyond them by naming the specific artifacts affected: the remote agent session and the local credential file path. It does not mention permission requirements, but for a zero-parameter local tool this is solid added value.

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 tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the downstream consequence second. No filler.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: what is revoked, what file is deleted, and the resulting auth state.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing further the description could clarify about inputs.

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 and resource ('Encerra o login local do Guard') and enumerates the exact effects: revoking the server-side agent session and deleting the credential at ~/.hocguard. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling guard_login and the scan tools.

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?

Conveys context through consequence — 'Depois disso, varrer volta a exigir guard_login' tells the agent this ends the authenticated state and that scans will subsequently fail. It does not explicitly say when an agent should call it versus not, but the implied usage is clear.

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