logout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that the tool deletes credentials from the system keychain, which is the core behavioral trait. It does not mention whether remote sessions are invalidated, but for a credential-removal operation this is reasonably transparent.

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, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource without unnecessary context or repeated tool name.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and where it operates. It could add a note about the result or idempotency, but the core behavioral contract is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; it appropriately focuses on what operation the tool performs. There is no gap here.

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 uses a specific verb ('删除' / delete) and states the exact resource affected: LeetCode China credentials stored in the system keychain. This clearly distinguishes logout from siblings like login and auth_status, as it is the only one that removes stored credentials.

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 intended usage is implied by the tool name and description: it should be called when the user wants to clear the saved LeetCode China credentials. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of auth_status or login, nor any 'when not to use' conditions.

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