session_consent

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'open[s] the user's browser' and requires user interaction to grant access. This is important behavioral context. Minor gap: doesn't describe behavior if consent is denied or browser fails, but sufficient for typical use.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by usage context, then Args and Returns sections. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and a straightforward purpose, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, parameter details, and return value. It lacks edge-case handling (e.g., user closes browser) but is comprehensive for the intended use case.

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 only defines 'scopes' as a string. The description adds valuable semantic detail: 'One or more scope URN strings (space-separated) from the ConsentRequired error response.' This explains the format and source of the parameter, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool's purpose explicitly: 'Grant consent for endpoint-specific data access.' It explains the scenario (ConsentRequired error) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'ls', 'transfer', 'stat', which are operations that may require consent.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'When operations like ls(), transfer(), or stat() fail with a ConsentRequired error, call this tool.' Also instructs to retry the original operation after consent, effectively covering usage flow.

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