logout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful side effect ('clears locally saved credentials'), which tells the agent this is a state-mutating operation, but it leaves open whether server-side tokens are revoked or only local files removed, and whether other sessions are affected.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the side effect second. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema session tool, the description covers both the action and its local effect, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It is slightly thin on post-condition detail (whether credentials are revoked remotely, what state the agent is left in), but 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 takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies — no parameter semantics are needed or missing.

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?

States a specific verb and target ('Log out from Rotifer Cloud') plus the concrete effect ('clears locally saved credentials'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly name its counterpart sibling (login) or contrast with auth_status, so sibling differentiation is only implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb itself — an agent will infer it should call this when ending a session or switching accounts — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative (login) or of auth_status for checking current session state.

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