Continue Unsplash+ login

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the tool's effects (e.g., whether it completes the login, mutates session state, or returns a result), nor does it mention any side effects or prerequisites. The phrase 're-check login' is vague about what the tool actually does beyond initiating a check.

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 focused sentence that conveys purpose and usage context without any redundancy. It front-loads the action and includes only essential details.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core action and trigger context. However, it does not mention what the function returns or any limitations, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the outcome. It is adequate but has room to include return behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for tools with 0 parameters.

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: re-check login after a user completes a verification step (CAPTCHA, MFA, consent). It uses a specific verb ('re-check') and identifies the resource ('login') and the triggering context, distinguishing it from the initial 'login' and general 'status' sibling tools.

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 states when to use the tool: after a user completes a CAPTCHA, MFA, consent, or verification step in Chrome. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough to guide usage without confusing it with the initial login or a status check.

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