aureon_dev_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it bypasses wallet signature auth and only functions when the API-side flag AUREON_ALLOW_DEV_LOGIN=1 is set. It does not say what a successful call returns (e.g. session token) or what happens if the flag is unset, but the auth/environment constraints are well covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the environment/prerequisite caveats in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place; only the em-dash aside slightly interrupts flow.

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 zero-parameter dev-only endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the essential context: what it does, the server-side prerequisite, and the production exclusion. The only gap is the return/credential behavior on success.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. There is no misleading parameter content.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('login') and immediately qualifies the mechanism ('without wallet signature'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the wallet-based auth siblings like aureon_verify_wallet. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('Local preview') plus an explicit exclusion ('not production') and the operational prerequisite (AUREON_ALLOW_DEV_LOGIN=1). This tells the agent when to reach for it versus the production auth path, though it does not spell out 'use X instead' alternatives.

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