login

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it opens a browser page requiring user consent and writes the key to ~/.misarreach/config.json, disclosing both the interactive step and the persistent side effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the differentiator ('no API key copy-paste'), then the interaction and the outcome. No filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and zero required parameters, the description carries the return-value burden and does so (key delivered back and saved). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it omits failure modes such as headless/hosted environments or what happens if authorization is denied.

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%, so port, force, and app_url are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what force does to key rotation or why a fixed port matters), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (authenticate) and resource (MisarReach account) and describes the concrete browser mechanism, which cleanly separates it from the sibling auth tools logout and auth_status. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 conveys the context (browser-based auth, no manual key copy-paste) which implies when to reach for it, but it never explicitly names alternatives such as auth_status (to check state) or logout, nor states what triggers a re-login. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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