glubler_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 discloses that the tool initiates browser authentication, that it should not be used when a token exists, and that it may trigger a 401-related user workflow. It also discloses a critical behavioral constraint: never ask the user to paste a token into chat. However, it doesn't describe what happens after authentication (e.g., whether it saves the token, whether it blocks until auth completes, or what the return value is). Still, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs a lot of useful guidance into a few sentences without redundancy. The 401 workflow and the 'never paste token' rule are valuable additions, though the 401 instruction is somewhat tangential to the tool's primary purpose and could be seen as extra context. Still, every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clear.

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 has only one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: when to use it, when not to use it, and how to handle a 401. It doesn't describe the authentication flow's outcome or return value, but for a login tool that initiates browser auth, the key decision context is well covered. The sibling tools are all Glubler operations, and the description clearly separates this auth tool from them. A 4 is justified because the description is nearly complete for the tool's simple purpose.

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 the schema already documents the single optional parameter authUrl. The description adds context by explaining the default behavior (default is https://glubler.com or http://localhost:3000) and that it is optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare description, though the schema already covers the parameter's existence and type. A 4 is appropriate because the description clarifies the default and optionality, which helps an agent decide whether to pass it.

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: start browser authentication only when no token is configured or available. It distinguishes itself from token-based connections and sibling Glubler tools by explicitly saying token-based connections do not need this tool. The verb 'start browser authentication' is specific and the resource (Glubler auth) is clear.

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 when-to-use guidance: only if GLUBLER_AUTH_TOKEN is not configured and no saved/active token is available. It also gives a clear alternative: use Glubler tools directly for token-based connections. It even includes a conditional workflow for 401 responses, telling the agent to ask the user to generate a new token and restart the MCP connection, and explicitly says never to ask the user to paste a token into chat. This is comprehensive usage guidance.

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