kreta_login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code + PKCE flow and the aggregate per-child status behavior when 'child' is omitted.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the child-selection nuance is placed in a separate sentence. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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?

For a login verification tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the protocol, and the parameter-dependent behavior. It could be slightly richer about when login verification is necessary, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining that 'child' is optional: when omitted with multiple children configured, all are checked and per-child statuses are returned. This meaningfully clarifies the only parameter, though it does not specify the expected string format of 'child'.

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 a specific action: login verification using OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code + PKCE. It also adds the distinctive child-selection behavior, which separates this login/status tool from the data-focused sibling tools.

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 gives a conditional usage rule: if no 'child' is specified and multiple children are configured, all are checked and per-child status is returned. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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