start_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses three important behaviors: the window is interactive, the user must complete 2FA, and the session is saved for later use. It could go further by noting side effects on any existing session or environment requirements, but what it states is genuinely informative.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded. The main behavior is in the first sentence, and the only parameter is documented in exactly one line. There is no filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no required arguments and an output schema, the definition is nearly complete. It explains the action, the interactive nature, the 2FA step, the session persistence, and the timeout semantics. A small gap is the absence of any statement about whether an existing session is replaced or invalidated.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter, and it does. 'Maximum time in seconds to wait for sign-in (default: 300)' adds real semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying that the tool blocks up to this timeout and that 300 is the default.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Open an interactive browser window to sign in to LinkedIn, solve 2FA, and save the session.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_login_status, logout, and refresh_session by focusing on the initial interactive login flow.

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 intended use is clear: call this when you need to establish a LinkedIn session interactively. However, the description does not explicitly say when not to use it, mention checking an existing session first, or name an alternative tool such as check_login_status for verifying authentication.

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