login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that login uses browser automation and that the token is cached for 24 hours, which are useful operational facts. However, it does not mention side effects such as invalidating a previous token, behavior on failure (e.g., network errors, CAPTCHA), or whether it is idempotent. These gaps leave uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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 concise—three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage condition and caching detail. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy. It is well-sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description conveys the essential return value implicitly (JWT token) and provides the key timing (cache 24h). It implies that this tool is a prerequisite for other operations (since it creates the token). It lacks details on error handling or explicit instructions to call it before other tools, but the core context is present. For a moderately complex tool, this is adequate.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters (username and password) with descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful semantics by noting that both are optional and default to configured values (admin username and configured password). This clarifies that an agent can omit them, which is not evident from the schema alone. The description adds value beyond the structured 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 action (login via browser automation), the target resource (ELN platform), and the outcome (obtaining a JWT token). It also gives the context for when it is appropriate (first use or token expiry), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_auth that presumably validate an existing token. This is a specific verb+resource definition that leaves no ambiguity.

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 when to use the tool: 'on first use or when the token expires'. This gives clear context for calling it. However, it does not mention alternatives (e.g., using check_auth to verify an existing token) or conditions under which it should not be called. Including such exclusions would push this to a 5.

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