detect_login_loops

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scanning behavior (all LOGIN events), the algorithm (threshold and window), and parameter defaults. It does not explicitly state read-only or safety traits, but the detection nature is clear and non-destructive. No contradictions.

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: a concise one-sentence summary, a brief paragraph explaining the scanning logic, and a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters with defaults) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, algorithm, parameter details, and behavior. No information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 5 parameters with zero description coverage. The tool's description compensates fully by providing detailed explanations for each parameter including defaults (date_from, date_to, threshold, window_seconds, top). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Detect users with rapid repeated logins (possible redirect loops).' It specifies the verb (detect), resource (users), and context (rapid repeated logins). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_brute_force_status or get_login_stats, which have different focuses.

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 explains the tool scans all LOGIN events and flags users exceeding a threshold within a time window. This implicitly guides usage for detecting redirect loops. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or provide direct comparisons to alternatives like get_brute_force_status, slightly limiting the agent's decision-making.

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