logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but omits important side effects such as irreversibility, impact on active sessions, or what 'jobs' refers to (e.g., queued jobs, cached job lists). This is a destructive operation, and the description does not provide safety context beyond the verb 'clear'.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no wasted text, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 no parameters, annotations, or output schema, so the description is the only source of information. It covers the core action but leaves ambiguity around 'jobs' and lacks detail on consequences (e.g., whether it logs out of all connected services). For a simple tool, this is minimally complete but not fully transparent.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there is nothing to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because no parameters exist.

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 ('clear') and identifies the resource ('stored credentials and jobs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like login_jenkins, login_slack, and whoami. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool name.

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 usage context but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Sibling tools like login_* suggest this is the inverse operation, but no alternative or exclusion is mentioned. The guidance is only implicitly derived from the tool name and siblings.

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