naukri_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 the tool opens a visible browser, requires manual interaction including OTP/captcha, and saves the session for headless reuse. However, it does not explicitly state what happens if already logged in (e.g., whether it overwrites the existing session), which is a minor gap. Overall, it provides good transparency beyond what schema could offer.

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 the core action front-loaded and no extraneous information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's operation and usage timing. It is concise and well-structured.

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 login tool that requires manual interaction, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, how the session is persisted, and how to check status (via sibling). No output schema exists, so none is needed. It adequately addresses the tool's complexity and context.

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 schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description does not mention the 'timeout_seconds' parameter at all. The parameter's name and default are self-explanatory, but since the description doesn't compensate for the lack of schema text, agents must infer its meaning. This is a notable gap given the low schema coverage.

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: opening a visible browser window for manual login, including OTP/captcha steps. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting that it is the only interactive login tool and that the resulting session is reused by all other tools. The verb-resource pairing is precise and unambiguous.

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 says to call this tool first, and again when the session status reports logged out, referencing the sibling 'naukri_session_status' as the check. It also implies when not to use it (when logged in). This provides clear guidance on invocation timing and the relationship to other tools.

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