tv_auth_session_login_auto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the main flow: a browser opens, user interaction occurs, and cookies are saved. However, it omits side effects, prerequisites, whether the call blocks until login completes, and what happens on timeout or failure.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and contains no filler. Every clause contributes useful behavioral information.

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?

The core flow is adequately described for a relatively simple tool, but gaps remain: no mention of return values, session-state implications, or the timeout parameter's role. Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, more detail would make the tool easier to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description does not mention the only parameter, timeout_seconds. The agent is left to infer meaning from the parameter name and schema constraints alone, with no added context about how the timeout applies to the login flow.

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 operation: opening an instrumented browser, letting the user log in, and capturing/saving TradingView session cookies. This is a specific verb-resource pairing that conveys the core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tv_auth_session_start or tv_auth_session_set.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling auth session tools. The interactive login scenario is implied by 'let user log in normally,' but no alternatives, exclusions, or preconditions are stated.

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