login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that no authentication flow occurs here, but says nothing about the returned state values, whether it can prompt, or what happens if the session is unauthenticated/unexpired.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the actual function and followed immediately by the exclusion. Every clause earns its place and there is 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should ideally say what the check returns (e.g. logged-in flag, account identity). That gap leaves the agent guessing about the result shape, though the critical constraint about OTP login is covered.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Check login state') and immediately clarifies that the tool is not the way to actually authenticate, which is the key ambiguity raised by the name 'login'. It is distinguishable from the closest sibling, 'logout', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 routes the agent precisely: interactive OTP login must happen via `termgram login` in a terminal, so this tool is for state checking only. That is a clear when-not-to-use statement with a named alternative, though it never states the positive condition for calling it (e.g. before operations that require an authenticated session).

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