login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Authenticate' implies establishing a session, but the description doesn't specify whether this creates persistent credentials, what authentication method is used (e.g., username/password, token), whether rate limits apply, or what happens on failure. For a security-critical authentication tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple authentication tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still being clear.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations, no output schema, and security implications, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what authentication method is used, what credentials are required (even implicitly), what the authentication establishes (session, token, etc.), or what happens on success/failure. Given the complexity of authentication in enterprise systems and the lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more contextual information.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for zero parameters with full schema coverage is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what's already clear from the schema.

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 'Authenticate with ABAP system' clearly states the verb ('Authenticate') and target resource ('ABAP system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'logout' by specifying authentication rather than session termination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential authentication mechanisms or clarify what type of authentication it performs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites for authentication, or what happens after authentication. Given the context of sibling tools like 'lock', 'unLock', and 'logout', there's no indication of when authentication is required versus when other session management tools should be used. The description assumes the agent knows when authentication is needed without providing explicit usage context.

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