iniciar-sesion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: it opens a visible Chromium browser, supports manual login via email link, password, or Google, auto-saves if an existing session is present, stores cookies in the MCP data folder, and closes the window. It does not cover what happens if the user fails to log in within the timeout, but overall it is transparent about the key side effects.

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 front-loaded with the main action, then covers session auto-save and cookie/cleanup behavior in three tight sentences. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 browser-based interactive login tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: what browser opens, what the user does, how sessions are persisted, and that the window closes. It could be more complete by describing timeout failure behavior or expected return, but it is largely sufficient.

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 optional parameter 'espera_max_segundos' has complete schema description coverage (100%), so the schema already documents its meaning, range, and default. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific action and resource: opening a Chromium-based browser at the Y Combinator login so the user can authenticate manually. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'estado-de-sesion' or other session-related tools.

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 the tool is used when the user needs to log in manually, and it notes that an existing MCP browser session will save automatically. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checking session status with 'estado-de-sesion', nor does it give exclusions or preconditions.

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