iniciar-sesion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a real browser window opens, that a human must complete authentication (email code, Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn), that the token is written to the MCP data folder, and that the window closes afterward. These are meaningful side effects an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether the call blocks until the user finishes or what happens on timeout.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the browser types, then the fast-path for an existing session, then the persistence/cleanup outcome. Dense with no filler, though the parenthetical list of auth providers is marginal detail.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the side effects and auth mechanics well, but never indicates what the call returns (success flag, token location, error on timeout) — an agent cannot tell how to detect failure versus a user who simply walked away. The absence of a check-first recommendation relative to estado-de-sesion is also a gap for a session-initiating 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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage including default (300 s) and the 30–900 bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the wait parameter even though it is directly relevant to the blocking browser flow it describes.

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: it opens a Chromium-based browser at the Magneto login page so the user can authenticate manually, then persists the token. The auth-flow nature clearly separates it from data-retrieval siblings like buscar-ofertas or listar-mis-cv. It never names estado-de-sesion, so the boundary with that sibling is left implicit.

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 rather than stated: the note that an existing session 'se renueva sola en segundos' hints the tool is safe to call when already logged in, and the manual-login framing implies it is the entry point of the auth flow. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use estado-de-sesion when Y' routing, and no prerequisite stating whether a check-first step is advised.

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