ugf_authenticate

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

No annotations were provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It explains the authentication flow and output (JWT) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or security implications (e.g., storing JWT securely).

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the steps, and specifying the output. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the essential flow for a login tool: prerequisite (nonce from previous call), inputs, and output (JWT to cache). Without an output schema, it adequately describes what to expect, though error handling or status codes are not mentioned.

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 describes each parameter (address, nonce, signature) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining that the nonce comes from ugf_get_nonce and the signature is the signed nonce, providing context beyond the schema.

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: 'Complete UGF login' and explains the mechanism (sign nonce from ugf_get_nonce, pass signature, get JWT). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ugf_get_nonce by indicating it is the subsequent step.

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 that this tool should be used after ugf_get_nonce by stating 'Agent signs the nonce from ugf_get_nonce'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of authentication flow is clear.

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