Login status

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

The description implies a mutation ('Force a fresh login') but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. This contradiction is not resolved. The description does not disclose that the operation is actually read-only (if it is) or what 'report success' entails (e.g., return format, side effects on existing session).

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by usage context. Every word is necessary; no redundancy.

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 the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and a use case. It could be more complete by explaining the return value or what 'fresh login' entails (e.g., whether it invalidates existing session), but it is adequate for a minimal tool.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline score for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds no confusion.

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 it forces a fresh login and reports success, which is a specific action on authentication. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with listings, categories, and other resources.

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 says 'Useful for diagnosing authentication problems,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but since there are no other authentication-related siblings, this is acceptable.

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