get_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the non-obvious mechanics: a floating 'Finish Connect' button, that it persists across redirects, and that capture happens only after manual click. It still omits timeout/failure behavior and whether the call blocks indefinitely while waiting.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences, the interaction model first and the button detail after; little waste beyond the leading emoji. Every sentence conveys usable behavior.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description never says what 'authentication data' is captured or in what form (cookies, tokens), leaving the return value underspecified. Combined with the silent timeout/failure behavior, a call-blocking interactive tool is only partially covered.

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 the schema already fully documents url, autoClose, saveToFile, and waitMessage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verbs and resource: opens a browser to a URL, waits for manual login, then captures authentication data. The 'INTERACTIVE LOGIN' framing clearly separates it from siblings like launch_browser and navigate_to, which do not perform credential capture.

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?

Usage is implied by the description – you use this when a site requires manual authentication and you want the resulting session data. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to alternatives such as set_storage (when cookies already exist) or launch_browser for unauthenticated browsing.

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