icp_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the initiation and the returned URL, but omits side effects like the auto_open parameter potentially launching a browser (default true) and the fact that login likely changes authentication state. These missing details could mislead an agent about the tool's operational impact.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the return value. There is no redundant information, and it effectively front-loads the core functionality.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavior and return value. The only notable gap is the absence of a mention of the auto_open side effect, but this is captured in the schema. Overall, the tool is well-described given its simplicity.

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% for the single parameter auto_open, which includes an explanation ('Automatically open the browser'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Initiates the wallet login flow' and specifies the return of a URL for authentication via Internet Identity or NFID. It distinguishes itself from siblings like icp_auth_status (which checks status) and get_principal_id (which retrieves a principal).

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 implies usage: when a login flow is needed, this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives such as icp_auth_status for checking existing login state, but the context of 'initiates the login flow' makes the primary use case clear.

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