epf_logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the remote call, the local session cleanup, and the error state until reauthentication, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loading the action and immediately stating the post-condition. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no filler.

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, parameterless logout tool, the description covers the server-side action, the local credential clearing, and the required follow-up (epf_reauth). Nothing needed to invoke or reason about the tool is missing.

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 confirms this, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description still covers invocation context completely, meriting the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 names the exact endpoint ('EPF /logout') and the local action ('clear the local session credential'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling authentication tools like epf_login and epf_reauth.

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 when to use the tool: to end an active EPF session. It also provides an important behavioral consequence ('Subsequent calls error until epf_reauth') that guides post-invocation steps, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it.

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