vibe

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

Annotations provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it opens a browser for GitHub auth and waits for completion, which is not covered by annotations. This clarifies the interactive nature and potential delays. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose ('Set your identity for /vibe') and efficiently explains the process in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by covering authentication method and completion behavior without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (authentication with browser interaction) and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the action, method (GitHub auth via browser), and waiting behavior. However, it could benefit from mentioning what 'Returns when auth is done' entails (e.g., success/failure indicators) to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 both parameters (handle and one_liner). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set your identity for /vibe' with the specific action of opening a browser for GitHub authentication and waiting for completion. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like vibe_status or vibe_who by focusing on identity setup rather than status checking or user lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., vibe_start might also involve initialization).

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 implies usage context ('Set your identity for /vibe') and mentions GitHub auth, suggesting this is for initial setup. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vibe_start or vibe_status, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., whether it should be used before other vibe tools).

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