Sign in with a code

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds the essential protocol the annotations cannot convey: the first call returns a short code and URL, the second call blocks waiting for approval and stores the token. That two-phase behavior is critical and well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the use-case constraint is front-loaded before the flow explanation. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description competently explains what the first call returns (code + URL). It leaves minor gaps – what the token persistence means, error/timeout behavior after the wait window – that would round out the picture for a state-changing auth tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (replace, waitSeconds) are already documented with ranges and defaults in the schema. The description hints at the 'waiting call' polling behavior but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what structured fields provide – the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Signs in') and immediately narrows the operating context to machines without a browser (container, remote host). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'login' tool by environment, though it never names the alternative, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Clearly describes when to use it ('where no browser can be opened on this machine — a container, a remote host') and lays out the two-call flow. It stops short of an explicit 'use login instead when a browser is available' exclusion, leaving the sibling comparison to inference.

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