login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns an authorization link for user interaction, suggests markdown presentation for clickability, and mentions optional parameters if configured in env. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens after authorization. For an authentication tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 appropriately sized (three sentences) and front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second gives usage guidelines, third explains return behavior. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient with minimal waste.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and return behavior. For an authentication tool, it adequately guides an agent, though adding output details (e.g., session persistence) would improve completeness.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'client_id' identifies accounts (e.g., 'father', 'mother') and noting optionality for api_key/secret if env-configured, which is already in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Login to Kite API for a specific account' with the verb 'login' and resource 'Kite API'. It distinguishes from siblings by being the only authentication tool, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'generate_session' which might be related. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from potential alternatives.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'If you are starting off a new conversation call this tool before hand. Call this if you get a session error.' It clearly states when to use the tool (initial setup, session errors) and implies when not to use it (when already authenticated). This is comprehensive and actionable for an agent.

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