connect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is an alias for login and is intended for unauthenticated users, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects like session creation, redirects, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained. It is adequate but minimal.

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 only two sentences long, front-loads the most important information ('Alias for login'), and every word contributes meaning. It is a model of conciseness with no superfluous content.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no complex behavior), the description covers the essential context: it's a login alias with a specific usage scenario. It could mention what happens after invocation (e.g., whether it returns a URL or initiates a redirect), but the low complexity makes the current level acceptable.

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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 parameters corresponds to a baseline score of 4. There is nothing more the description could add about 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 clearly identifies it as an 'Alias for login' and specifies that it 'open[s] the CocoInbox secure connect portal,' which conveys its function effectively. It also mentions the use case 'log me in' / 'get user' when not authenticated, which slightly differentiates it from siblings like 'login' and 'get_current_user'. However, the exact behavior of 'opening the portal' remains somewhat ambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: it is 'Preferred for "log me in" / "get user" when not authenticated.' This gives a clear context and implies that alternative tools (e.g., get_current_user) are more appropriate after authentication, even though it doesn't name them. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'when not authenticated' qualifier is strong guidance.

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