login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of returning a Bearer token, but does not mention failure behavior, token expiry, or whether it invalidates previous sessions. This is a moderate gap given the absence of structured 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action, contains no filler, and communicates the essential purpose and outcome efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the core purpose and return value. It lacks error handling or token usage context (e.g., Authorization header), but given the simplicity, it is largely complete.

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 input schema already provides meaningful descriptions for both parameters (Account email/password), and schema coverage is 100%. The description only restates 'email + password' without adding syntax, format, or additional constraints beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 action (log in), the credential type (email + password), and the result (Bearer token). It distinguishes login from sibling tools like register_account and whoami by being the authentication entry-point.

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 implies when to use it (to authenticate and get a token), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for a login tool, though it could benefit from noting that register_account creates an account first.

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