LMS 로그아웃

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, and the description adds real context beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (the keychain entry), that the server-side session is also killed for method=browser sessions but deliberately not for extension-linked ones. It does not say what the tool returns or whether calling it with no active session errors, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, followed by the conditional exception and the follow-up action. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description covers the important semantics: what is removed, when the server is also logged out, and how to resume work. Only the no-active-session edge case is unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still earns its place by referencing the 'method=browser' origin from the login flow, which is the only input-like distinction that governs the tool's behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it deletes the LMS session stored in the OS keychain, and contrasts that with server session termination for browser-obtained sessions. An agent can distinguish this from login and from the browser-cookie case without inspecting any schema.

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?

It explicitly names the counterpart action ('다시 쓰려면 login 을 호출한다') and explains the condition under which server logout does or does not happen (extension-linked vs method=browser). It stops short of stating what happens when no session exists, so it falls just under a full when/when-not spec.

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