perplexity_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: opening a browser window (external interaction), requiring user completion of login (manual step), and automatically saving cookies (outcome). However, it lacks details on error handling, timeout behavior, or what happens if login fails, which prevents a perfect score.

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 and efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core action and outcome, the second clarifies the user's role. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information (automation steps and manual requirement) with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving browser automation and authentication), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, process, and outcome. However, it omits details like where cookies are saved or how to verify success, which would enhance completeness for this type of 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds context about the tool's operation (browser-based login flow) without redundant parameter details. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description provides useful operational semantics.

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 with specific verbs ('Opens a browser window', 'log in', 'saves cookies') and resources ('Perplexity'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like perplexity_ask (querying) and perplexity_list_models (listing models). It explicitly describes the authentication flow, which is unique among the 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for logging into Perplexity to obtain cookies. It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on authentication (vs. querying with perplexity_ask or checking status with perplexity_status). The instruction 'User must complete login in the browser' clarifies the required user interaction, making usage context clear.

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