login

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the session remains authenticated for subsequent calls, credentials are used only for this session and not persisted, and it explains the return structure (LoginResult) with specific fields. This covers authentication persistence, security handling, and response format.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, usage guidelines, returns, behavioral notes) and appropriately sized. While efficient, the repetition of parameter details in the 'Args' section adds some redundancy since the schema already covers them, preventing a perfect score.

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 that this is an authentication tool with no annotations but with a detailed output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameters, return values, session behavior, and security considerations, making it fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter information in the 'Args' section but adds minimal additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Authenticate with USCardForum credentials') and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly mentioning it's for authentication while most read operations work without it. The verb 'authenticate' is precise and the resource 'USCardForum credentials' is well-defined.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('if you need authenticated features like: Reading notifications, Bookmarking posts, Subscribing to topics') and when not to use it ('Most read operations work without authentication'). It also implicitly suggests alternatives by listing specific authenticated features that would require this tool.

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