Проверить авторизацию

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the token is not revealed, only success/failure is returned. It also implies a side-effect-free authentication check. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, rate limits, or what happens on invalid credentials. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it returns, and what it requires. No fluff, front-loaded with the action.

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 authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the main points: action, credential source, and return behavior. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., invalid credentials, network failure) and whether repeated calls are safe. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description explains that credentials come from environment variables (TAXI_LOGIN/TAXI_PASSWORD), which is useful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Выполняет вход' – performs login) and resource (TAXI_LOGIN/TAXI_PASSWORD auth chain), and clarifies that it returns only success/failure, not the token. It is distinguishable from siblings like taxi_status or taxi_reference_list, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 it: when credentials are available and authentication is needed. It states a requirement ('Требует учётных данных') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it. Sibling names suggest other tools are for status/reference, so context is somewhat clear but not explicit.

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