login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that a session is established, hinting at a side effect, but does not explain what happens on success/failure, session lifetime, security implications, or whether prior sessions are invalidated. This is insufficient for a tool with such critical side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: 'Authenticate with 4D REST server and establish session.' Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy. It is compact and immediately communicates the core purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., session token, status), which is essential for an authentication tool. It also lacks details on session behavior, error handling, or prerequisites. The schema covers parameters, but the overall description is too thin for the tool's significance.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (user, hashed, minutes, password) clearly documented in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already handles parameter meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') and resource ('4D REST server'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also mentions 'establish session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like catalog, query, upsert, delete, and callFunction, which are operational rather than authentication-focused.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for authenticating and starting a session. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to use it (e.g., before other calls) or when not to. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use.

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