cap_session_login

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 mentions that force=true re-logs in (implying a possible destructive action) and account_id switches account, but it does not disclose side effects like invalidating existing sessions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe to call multiple times.

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 concise, with two short sentences that front-load the purpose. No unnecessary words. However, the structure could be improved by separating the two effects (force and account_id) more clearly or using bullet points.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema present), the description covers the core functionality and parameter effects. However, it lacks usage context, behavioral transparency, and guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'force=true re-logs in' and 'account_id switches account.' This provides some context beyond the schema's raw types, but it lacks precision (e.g., what does 're-logs in' entail? Does switching account require a new session?).

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: 'Create or verify a session.' It specifies the verb ('create' or 'verify') and the resource ('session'), and it explains the two parameters. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cap_session_status or cap_session_switch_account, though the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cap_session_status (to check session) or cap_session_switch_account (to change account). The description implies usage for login or verification but does not state prerequisites, when to avoid, or exclusions.

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