sign_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool only clears the local Keychain cache and does not affect remote sessions or tokens, which is essential context beyond the tool name. It could add information about return behavior or idempotency, but the core side effects and limitations are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important scope limitation is placed as a brief second sentence. 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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter tool with minimal complexity. The description fully covers what it does, where it acts, and what it does not do. Since an output schema exists, omitting return-value details is acceptable. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Forget the cached sign-in' and concretely specifies the mechanism: 'clears the macOS Keychain token cache.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like sign_in (which would create a sign-in) and auth_status (which would check status).

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 a clear boundary with 'Local only — does not revoke Microsoft browser sessions or issued tokens,' which tells the agent when this tool is and is not appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for full revocation, so it falls just short of a 5.

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