login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the token is saved for future sessions, that a fresh verification code is emailed, and that the password remains in the conversation transcript. This is rich behavioral context beyond the basic login action.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and key effects; the second provides crucial usage guidance. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the main behavior, side effects, and guidance. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error cases (e.g., invalid credentials) or the structure of the returned profile, but it sufficiently addresses the tool's purpose and context.

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 schema only lists 'email' and 'password' with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds the important caveat about password retention in the transcript, which gives semantic weight to the password parameter. However, it does not specify formats, validation rules, or other per-parameter constraints, so coverage remains partial.

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 that the tool logs in with email and password, logs the session in, and returns the profile. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'use_token' by noting that this method saves the token and is rarely needed twice.

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?

Excellent usage guidance: explicitly recommends using 'use_token' instead whenever possible, with a clear rationale (password retained in transcript vs. token not). Also mentions the unverified account flow and directs to 'verify'.

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