kairos_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 clearly states the flow: returns a URL and code, requires human browser entry, and completes via a follow-up call. It also explains when it is needed (once or after token lapses). While it does not explicitly state whether it invalidates existing tokens or requires prior auth, for a login initiation this level of disclosure is generally adequate.

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 three short, purposeful sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action, then describes the output and next step, and finally the usage condition. Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the action, output (URL and code), the required human step, the follow-up call, and the circumstances for use. It does not mention error handling or the role of kairos_auth_status, but given the presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool, this is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of any prerequisites or side effects.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no need for the description to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the action and flow rather than parameter details.

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 action: 'Start a device-code sign-in to Microsoft 365' and specifies it returns a URL and a code. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from its sibling kairos_login_finish by instructing to call that to complete the flow, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Only needed once, or after the refresh token lapses (for example after a password change).' It also directs the agent to call kairos_login_finish() next, framing the complete workflow. This is sufficient for an agent to decide between this and related tools.

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