ndfc_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 of disclosure. It mentions the token validity period (3600 seconds) and the return type (dict with success/authentication info), which adds moderate behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether multiple successful logins are handled, or if there are side effects like session creation.

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 extremely concise with three short, clear sentences. It front-loads the core action and includes key details (token validity, return type) without unnecessary text.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return value shape (dict with success/authentication info) and the token duration, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the token lifetime (3600 seconds), which is beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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: authenticate to NDFC and obtain a JWT token. The verb 'authenticate' and resource 'NDFC' are specific, and the sibling tools are predominantly other NDFC operations or tools from different vendors, so no ambiguity exists.

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 for authentication but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it (e.g., before other NDFC tools) or mention alternatives. It assumes typical context but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions.

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