kairos_login_finish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool waits up to ~60 seconds, reports if the code has not been entered, and supports repeated invocation. This is meaningful transparency for a blocking zero-parameter action, though failure modes and exact return behavior remain unspecified.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first identifies the purpose and prerequisite, the second covers timeout and retry behavior. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core scenario, the prerequisite, the blocking behavior, and the retry strategy. Nothing essential appears to be missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 ('Complete a device-code sign-in') tied to a named precondition (kairos_login()). It clearly distinguishes itself from kairos_login, the starting step, and kairos_auth_status, the status-check sibling. An agent can immediately understand what this tool is for.

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 explicit timing guidance: call after entering the code in the browser, and feel free to call again if the code has not been entered yet. This tells the agent when to use the tool and how to retry, though it does not explicitly contrast with kairos_auth_status or state when not to use it.

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