login

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: it opens a browser portal, mentions the portal_opened boolean, and instructs not to write multi-step auth instructions. It also notes the alternative OAuth flow. Slightly short on side effects (e.g., whether it invalidates existing sessions) but adequate for a login initiation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The presentation instructions are bulleted for clarity, and the OAuth alternative is mentioned without extra fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 covers the essential behavioral details: opening the portal, preferred usage, presentation rules, and follow-up via complete_login. It could mention what to do if login fails or if portal_opened is false, but overall it's quite complete for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds context about output behavior (portal_opened) which is useful.

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 (Open the CocoInbox secure login portal) and specifies it's browser-basedlint. It distinguishes from siblings like complete_login (for code entry) and login_with_password by emphasizing the portal flow and OAuth alternative.

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 explicitly says to prefer this over asking for passwords in chat, and gives when-not to use it (if MCP OAuth is available). It also directs subsequent steps (call complete_login after code paste), providing clear contextual guidance.

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