inspect_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs a live POST, returns raw response and token paths, and does not commit config, which is important safety-relevant behavior. It does not mention potential side effects of hitting a live login endpoint, but the core non-committing behavior is clearly stated.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and output; the second adds the use case and the key 'without committing config' caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema and the description explains purpose, output, and non-committing behavior, this is reasonably complete. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by saying 'raw response plus suggested token paths,' though a bit more detail on failure behavior would make it stronger.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'POST credentials to the login endpoint' and clearly states the output ('raw response plus suggested token paths'). It also differentiates itself from generic API siblings by framing the tool as an auth-discovery helper for finding auth.tokenPath and verifying loginUrl.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to discover the right auth.tokenPath (and verify auto-discovered loginUrl) without committing config.' It implies this should be used during auth configuration discovery rather than as a general API call, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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