login_instructions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that instructions are Markdown-formatted and rendering depends on the client, and that the server relies on locally saved credentials from the CLI. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but that is implied. Overall, it adds valuable context.

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 three concise sentences, each adding relevant information: purpose, dependency on CLI, and Markdown rendering note. No extraneous content; perfectly front-loaded.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's function and key context. However, it could mention that no login action is performed, only instructions are provided. Still, it is sufficient for a simple 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?

No parameters are defined, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds nothing about parameters, but baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool as per guidelines.

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 verb ('provides') and resource ('instructions' formatted with Markdown) for login using the ESP RainMaker CLI. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_login_status by being the only tool that offers instructions.

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 implies usage when login instructions are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., check_login_status for login state or get_nodes for managing nodes). No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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