lipi_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect—caching tokens for later tools—and the return content. It does not detail token expiry, storage location, or failure behavior, but this is adequate for a straightforward login tool.

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 short sentences each earn their place: what it does, what side effect it has, when to call it, and what it returns. The most critical instruction is front-loaded.

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 login tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the auth method, the caching behavior, the usage order, and the return payload ('user + vault'). The optional apiUrl parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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%: email, password, and apiUrl all have clear descriptions in the schema. The description merely restates 'email + password' and adds no semantic value beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Log in to Lipi') with a specific method ('email + password'). It distinguishes this tool from its note-manipulation siblings by being the only authentication entry point.

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?

Explicitly states when to invoke it: 'Call this first if you have no token.' It also explains that it caches accessToken + refreshToken for subsequent tools, giving an agent a clear prerequisite relationship with sibling note tools.

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