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 mentions authentication via SSO and .env file usage, but lacks details on what the tool actually does (e.g., establishes a session, returns tokens, handles errors) or behavioral traits like rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a login tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and configuration requirement. It's front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words, 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 complexity of a login operation (authentication, session management) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after login (e.g., session persistence, return values, error handling), leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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 1 parameter with 100% coverage, describing it as a 'Dummy parameter for no-parameter tools.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, which is appropriate since the tool likely doesn't require user-provided inputs. With high schema coverage and no meaningful parameters, a baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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: 'Log in to eClass using username/password from your .env file through UoA's SSO.' It specifies the action (log in), target system (eClass), and authentication method (SSO with .env credentials). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'authstatus' or 'logout' beyond the obvious login/logout distinction.

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 implies usage context: it should be used to authenticate with eClass via SSO when credentials are stored in .env. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'authstatus' (which might check login state) or prerequisites beyond .env configuration. The guidance is somewhat implied but not comprehensive.

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