vibe_init

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

With no annotations providing a safety profile, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it returns immediately, never waits, may open a browser only locally, never over SSH/headless, and completes auth in background. This is unusually explicit about side effects and asynchronous behavior.

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 information-dense sentences front-load the action and no-input expectation, then cover return behavior, browser behavior, and the handoff to vibe_start. Every clause carries operational value with no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: return state, login URL, relay message, timing, and follow-up behavior. Optional parameters are covered by the complete input schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both optional parameters. The description adds the useful emphasis that no input is needed and that the GitHub username is the default handle, but this is largely restating the schema's own descriptions rather than adding new meaning.

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 ('Sign in to /vibe with GitHub') and resource, explains the immediate outcome, and distinguishes itself from the sibling flow by noting that the next 'vibe start' recognizes the completed sign-in. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly frames this as an auth-initiation step and references the follow-up tool ('the next vibe start recognizes it'), showing when it fits in the workflow. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it.

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