moodle_login

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the browser-window behavior, MFA involvement, return condition ('returns once login is detected'), and the explicit prohibition against asking for the user's password. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's interactive side effects. No contradiction with readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, or idempotentHint true.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary detail. The Args section is clearly formatted and directly explains the only parameter.

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 an interactive login tool, the description covers the key operational facts: what triggers login, who performs authentication, when to use force, what causes a return, and what the agent must never do. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed here.

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 input schema only provides a title and default for 'force', but the description's Args section explains it precisely: 'open the login browser even if the current session is still valid'. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Log in to ZHAW Moodle', and clarifies the interaction model with 'Opens a browser window where the USER signs in with SWITCH edu-ID (incl. MFA) themselves'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by noting that other tools log in automatically when needed.

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 provides clear usage context: this tool performs interactive user login, the user must sign in themselves, and the agent must never ask for a password. It also conveys that other tools handle their own authentication, which implies this tool is for explicit interactive login rather than routine use, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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