Token Tanımla

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action ('defines a token') and a benefit, but lacks details on side effects, token validation, or what happens if the token is invalid. The behavior beyond the basic function is opaque.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key benefit. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Efficiently conveys core information.

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 simple token-setting tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description provides a basic understanding. However, it lacks details on how to obtain the token, error scenarios, or relation to other session tools (e.g., gib_session_info). It feels slightly incomplete for an agent to use without additional context.

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 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('token' or 'testMode'). It fails to explain token format, expected length, or the purpose of testMode. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema definition.

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 defines a previously obtained session token and explains its benefit (no login needed until token expires). This distinguishes it from authentication tools like gib_login and gib_logout, though it could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'sets' instead of 'defines').

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 should be used when a valid token is already available, avoiding login. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., if no token exists) nor provides clear alternatives among siblings. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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