login_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the three possible states returned, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that includes the key subject ('login progress') and the possible values. It is front-loaded but could potentially be structured with a clearer format (e.g., listing states separately).

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is largely complete. However, it slightly lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requiring a prior login initiation).

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 in the input schema, so per the guidelines the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning as there are none.

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 tool queries 'scan login progress' initiated by login, listing three possible states (pending/success/error). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'login' (initiates login) and 'auth_status' (likely a different auth check).

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 it should be used after login is initiated, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'auth_status' or 'login'. No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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