login_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states a batch login process but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., creating sessions), error handling, or what happens on partial failure. For a mutation-like login operation, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and packed with necessary information in three sentences. The primary purpose is stated upfront, followed by parameter syntax and fallback behavior. No redundant content; each sentence contributes meaning. It is well-structured and easy to parse for an agent.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (batch login, multiple parameters, env var fallback) and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers the main usage aspects but omits behavioral details such as response format, error handling, and requirements (e.g., authentication). For a login tool, these are important for an agent to handle results correctly. It is minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema only gives parameter names and types (all strings) with defaults of null. The description adds essential meaning by explaining that parameters take comma-separated values, how pairs are formed ('subdomains', 'usernames', 'passwords' aligned), and that env vars are used for unspecified ones. This is crucial for correct invocation and compensates well for the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Log in to one or more schools using multiple subdomains in a single call.' It identifies a specific verb (Log in), resource (subdomains/schools), and distinguishes it from sibling 'login' by highlighting the batch aspect. However, it could be more explicit about the difference from other login variants like 'login_auto' or 'login_from_session'.

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 usage: 'Log in to one or more schools using multiple subdomains in a single call' and provides format details for parameters. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Siblings like 'login', 'login_auto', 'login_from_session' exist, but the description doesn't explain when batch login is preferred over these, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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