check_webdav_login

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. It states the tool checks login success and returns a message, but lacks details on what constitutes 'success' or 'failure' (e.g., network errors, authentication issues), whether it performs actual login attempts or validates stored credentials, or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, session creation). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and well-structured: two sentences that directly state the purpose and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse 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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, simple purpose) and the presence of an output schema (which should detail the return message), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context on authentication requirements or integration with sibling tools, which could be helpful for an agent to use it effectively in workflows.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.

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: 'Check if WebDAV login is successful.' It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('WebDAV login'), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools, which are all note/category management tools unrelated to WebDAV login, so this is not a limitation here.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing WebDAV credentials), context for invocation (e.g., before other operations), or exclusions. Without such information, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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