test_jumpserver_login

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds the valuable behavioral trait that it does not return the API token, which is not in the annotations. This extra context is useful, though it does not elaborate on failure modes or response details. With annotations carrying much of the burden, a 4 is appropriate.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence. It states the action and a key behavioral exception upfront, with zero redundant phrases. Every word contributes to meaning, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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, safe (read-only, idempotent) annotations, and an output schema documenting return values, the description is complete. It specifies the purpose and the critical 'no token returned' behavior, and the safety profile is already covered by annotations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description has no obligation to add param details. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it by not misleading or missing anything.

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: 'Verify URL and username/password authentication' — a specific verb and resource. It also adds a distinguishing detail ('without returning the API token') that separates it from sibling tools that list databases or credentials. This is not a tautology and provides a precise, distinct purpose.

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 implies usage (when you want to test credentials without getting a token), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the list/retrieve siblings. There is no mention of 'use this when...' or exclusions. The context is clear but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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