login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does a solid job: it reveals that login normally happens automatically, that this call creates a fresh session, and that it can be used to validate credential configuration. It does not detail side effects like session invalidation or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first names the action and mechanism; the second provides usage guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters, an output schema, and a clear purpose, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, why it might be needed, and when it can be skipped. Nothing essential is 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context by mentioning the configured client code, PIN, and TOTP secret, even though these are not tool parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('authenticate') and a specific resource ('Angel One'), and clarifies that this is an explicit reauthentication action. It also differentiates itself from the normal automatic login behavior, making its purpose unambiguous among siblings.

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 explicitly says the tool is 'normally not needed' because the client logs in automatically, and gives two concrete use cases: forcing a fresh session or verifying credentials. It does not name an alternative tool, but that is less relevant since login has no direct sibling alternative.

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