arim_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the side effect of creating a session and the env-var fallback behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose how long the session lasts, whether existing sessions are invalidated, what happens on failure, or whether credentials are stored or transmitted beyond the fallback.

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?

Two short, focused sentences. The primary action and target are front-loaded, and the parameter fallback is stated immediately after. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 core purpose and parameter behavior, but since there is no output schema and no annotations, it omits the login response format, the session mechanism, and typical error conditions. Given the low complexity (3 optional params, no nested objects), this is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that needs to rely on the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by explaining that omitted arguments fall back to ARIM_MCP_USER/ARIM_MCP_PASS environment variables, which is behavioral information beyond the raw property descriptions for userId and password.

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 verb '로그인해' (log in) and the resource 'ARIM 모니터링 서버' (ARIM monitoring server), and it clarifies the outcome: creating a session. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like arim_logout and arim_whoami, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 the tool is used to establish a session, which is a prerequisite for other ARIM tools. It provides a concrete usage hint about environment variable fallback when arguments are omitted, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when a login is unnecessary.

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