uoft_login

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: immediate return, a five-second wait with rechecking, saving the latest session, status staying in_progress, non-deletion on remember=False, and a security rule against supplying passwords or MFA codes. This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and timing.

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 dense but not bloated; the core behavior is front-loaded, followed by parameter-specific details and a safety note. Each sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers what happens immediately, how status behaves during the wait, what remember=False does, and where to check progress. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and follow up correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists service options (degree_explorer, acorn, or both) and explains the meaningful semantics of remember=False as a fresh memory-only session without deleting saved sessions. Service values mostly echo the schema enum, but the remember explanation adds real value.

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 action ('Start official UofT browser login') and a clear resource, and immediately signals that it is asynchronous by returning while Duo is completed. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling auth-state tools like uoft_auth_status or uoft_forget_session.

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 gives concrete invocation context: saved sessions are reused when valid, remember=False starts a fresh memory-only session, and the agent should check uoft_auth_status for progress. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling session tools, but the intended usage is clear.

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