innoslate_login

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the blocking wait behavior, the 300s default, the env/.env credential auto-fill, and the security rule that passwords are never tool arguments. It does not say what happens if the wait times out or login fails, which is the main remaining behavioral gap. The readOnlyHint/idempotent annotations are not contradicted by opening a browser session.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by compact per-parameter notes and a credential-handling sentence. No filler, and the most important constraint (passwords never accepted) is stated last for emphasis.

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?

With only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no nested data, the description covers purpose, both params, and credential behavior adequately. Missing only failure/timeout semantics, which is minor for a browser-wait 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: project_url is explained as the address-bar URL with an example format, and wait_seconds as the login wait duration with its default. It stops short of stating allowable ranges or the unit boundary beyond the default, keeping it just under a 5.

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+resource+mechanism: open the project in a browser window and wait for login. No sibling tool does anything comparable; the interactive-browser framing alone distinguishes it from all the data-oriented innoslate_* siblings.

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 prerequisite nature of the call (login must precede work) but never says so explicitly, nor names an alternative or a when-not condition. It does clarify credential handling, which is contextual guidance rather than usage routing.

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