login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication methods but doesn't describe what happens after authentication (e.g., session creation, token return, error handling), whether it's idempotent, or what permissions are needed. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and available methods. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 this is an authentication tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description provides minimal but functional context. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description lacks details about authentication flow, error cases, or integration with other tools. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a security-critical operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by listing the three authentication methods ('api_key', 'password', 'session') which helps interpret the 'method' parameter. However, it doesn't explain the 'credential', 'username', or 'database' parameters, leaving 3 of 4 parameters without semantic clarification beyond their titles.

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: 'Authenticate with Odoo' specifies the verb (authenticate) and target system (Odoo). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication rather than data operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential alternative authentication methods in the sibling list.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions three authentication methods but doesn't explain when to choose one over another, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing credentials or when authentication is required versus using existing sessions.

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