mess_login_msit

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that successful login returns a session cookie value in 'session_hint' that must be passed in subsequent calls, which is critical usage information not captured in annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args, and Returns. It's appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the Returns section could be slightly more concise by integrating the session hint explanation into the main description.

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 this is an authentication tool with 1 complex parameter object, no output schema provided in context signals, and annotations covering basic behavioral hints, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, parameters, return format, and critical session management requirement for subsequent calls.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section documents both parameters (user as 'email address' and password as 'plaintext'), providing basic semantics. However, it doesn't add format details beyond what's already in the schema's property descriptions (e.g., email format example).

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 specific action ('Login as an MSIT student or intern') using specific credentials ('email + password'). It distinguishes this authentication tool from sibling tools like 'mess_cas_login_info' or 'mess_get_me' by focusing on credential-based login rather than info retrieval or other authentication methods.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Login as an MSIT student or intern'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'mess_cas_login_info'. It implies this is the primary credential-based login method for MSIT users.

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