coronium_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific side effect of caching an encrypted token at a file path, and explains the auto-login behavior of other tools. However, it does not explicitly state whether the token is overwritten or what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, with the first stating the core action and the second providing necessary usage context. No redundant information; every clause serves a purpose.

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 2-parameter login tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, the token cache side effect, and the specific circumstances for manual invocation. It lacks an explicit statement of return values or error behavior, but that is not critical given the tool's role.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, including the env fallback behavior for both login and password. The description's mention of 'email + password' adds no new information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 opens with 'Authenticate with email + password and cache an encrypted token at ~/.coronium/token.enc', clearly stating the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting that most other tools auto-login, making manual login only necessary for re-auth or account switching.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'calling this manually is only needed for explicit re-auth or account switching.' It also implicitly names alternatives by explaining that 'most other tools auto-login when CORONIUM_LOGIN/CORONIUM_PASSWORD are set in the env', which guides the agent away from calling this tool routinely.

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