login_classic

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 does well by revealing that the tool is heuristic, auto-detects fields, clicks multi-step navigation, fills, submits, and returns a step log plus fresh snapshot. It also warns about the fallback path for unusual forms. It omits potential failure modes like CAPTCHAs or login redirect delays, but the 'Heuristic' warning appropriately tempers expectations.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second describes the workflow, the third explains the composite benefit, and the fourth sets expectations and return value. Every sentence earns its place, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses the return value ('step log + a fresh snapshot'), which is essential for agent post-invocation handling. It also covers the operational workflow, the heuristic risk, and the fallback strategy. Combined with full schema coverage, nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning that a TOTP 2FA code can be entered, which is already fully covered by totp_code and totp_secret descriptions. This is the baseline 3: schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Composite login for classic email→password forms (Google, Microsoft, generic SSO).' It enumerates the exact steps (email field, Next/Continue, password, submit, optional TOTP), and distinguishes itself from individual fill/click tools via the 'Collapses... into one' framing. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from sibling low-level tools.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool — for classic email→password forms such as Google, Microsoft, and generic SSO. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'if a form is unusual, fall back to individual fill/click tools,' which names the alternative approach. This is actionable routing guidance, not merely implied context.

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