Login status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds information the annotations cannot: mode-dependent behavior (demo mode with no key or failed validation returns a step-by-step config guide; signed-in mode returns identity, reachable envs with OWNER/WRITE/READ permissions, default env, and session-most-recent env). That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then routes. The bolded phrasing lists are long but each entry is a real disambiguation trigger rather than filler, so the length is largely earned; a slight deduction for the density of emphasis and repeated tool names.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains — the two operating modes and which sibling tools handle the authentication path — is fully covered, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 confirms 'takes no args', which is consistent with the empty schema and useful confirmation for an agent deciding whether it needs to gather inputs first, though it adds little beyond what the empty schema already implies.

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 ('List the user's Log10x ACCOUNT environments and report credential / login state') and immediately scopes it against siblings by naming log10x_signin_start, log10x_signin_complete, and log10x_discover_env with the reason discover_env is unrelated. An agent can identify this tool and its boundary without opening 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?

Provides explicit routing: an enumerated list of user phrasings that must map to this tool ('which environments do I have', 'am I logged in', 'switch envs') and a separate enumerated list for when to use log10x_signin_start / log10x_signin_complete instead, plus an explicit 'Do NOT call log10x_discover_env' exclusion with rationale. This is about as complete as when/when-not guidance gets.

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