mess_cas_login_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool returns 'step-by-step instructions for obtaining a session cookie' and clarifies the browser-only limitation. This provides useful behavioral information about the output format and operational constraints that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two brief sentences that each serve distinct purposes. The first sentence states the purpose and key constraints, the second describes the return value. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 tool has 0 parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides complete context. It explains what the tool does, its constraints, and what it returns. For a simple informational tool with no inputs, this description is fully adequate.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 (not 5) because while it correctly omits parameter discussion, it could theoretically mention that no parameters are needed, though this isn't required for full credit.

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's purpose: 'Get instructions for IIIT student CAS login' with the specific resource (CAS login instructions) and verb (get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'mess_login_msit' by specifying it's for obtaining instructions rather than performing login directly, and clarifies it's browser-only and cannot be called via API/AJAX.

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 explicit usage guidance: it's for obtaining login instructions, specifies it's 'browser-only, cannot be called via API/AJAX' which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool (for automated login), and implies alternatives like 'mess_login_msit' for actual login operations. This gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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