login_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains persistence of session, return of success details, and re-run behavior. Missing minor details like potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing session), but covers essential behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences front-loaded with action, prerequisites, and return value. No unnecessary words, each sentence contributes essential information.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, prerequisites, return value, and a re-use scenario. Completeness is high relative to 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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'project' described as 'Project name'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that baseline. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'project's configured login', specifying methods (form, Basic Auth, cookies) and the key outcome of persisting the session. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning prerequisites (set_* tools) and re-run on expiry.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires set_form_login / set_basic_auth / set_cookies first') and a specific use case ('Re-run it when auth expires mid-test'). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use comparisons with alternatives like interactive_login, but overall guidance is clear.

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