Confirm Login

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 explains that the tool does not automatically determine success and requires explicit confirmation, and it interprets the warning=no_credential_evidence return, indicating unauthenticated state. It does not describe successful behavior or other side effects, but the key behavioral nuance is covered.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and trigger condition, followed by a behavioral warning. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be fully described. However, the description does not explain what login_session_id refers to, nor how this tool fits among the many login-related sibling tools. It provides enough for basic invocation but leaves gaps in the full usage flow.

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 0% for the single parameter login_session_id, and the description never mentions this parameter or explains where it comes from. The agent is left without information on how to obtain or use the required session ID, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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: confirming login after the user has replied that login is complete. It uses a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('login'), and mentions the main-path context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like confirm_login_ready or request_login_confirm_dialog, so it falls short of full distinction.

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 when-to-use condition: call after the Agent has asked the user and the user has replied that login is complete. It also states the tool relies on explicit confirmation and will not auto-judge. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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