login_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool forces the auth lifecycle (implying side effects) and raises an error when not initialized. But it does not detail behavior if already authenticated or what 'now-authenticated' status entails.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every sentence provides value, and there is no wasted text.

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 no parameters and a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the return value and an error condition. The output schema exists but is not described; however, per guidelines, this is not required. Minor gap: could clarify the 'status' object.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description adds no parameter details, which is fine given the absence of parameters. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('force the auth lifecycle') and the result ('return the status'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings, as no other sibling tool appears to perform authentication probing.

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 explicitly notes usage for verifying connectivity, credentials, and server initialization, and mentions a specific error condition. However, it does not provide exclusions or compare to alternatives.

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