receive_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the end-to-end encryption of the cookie jar, that it 'opens it in memory' rather than persisting it, injects cookies into the live browser context, that no password ever reaches the agent, and that the drop is 'single-use and self-destructs after pickup.' These details clearly set expectations about security, side effects, and session lifecycle.

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 primary action in the first sentence, then each subsequent sentence adds meaningful context: the workflow, security model, and the single-use nature. There is no repetitive filler or irrelevant detail, making it appropriately sized for the technical complexity it conveys.

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?

This is a single-parameter tool with no annotations but with an output schema present. The description covers the input semantics, the operational process, the security guarantees, and the lifecycle of the drop. Combined with the output schema, the definition is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema only defines 'code' with a title and no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining that the code is a one-shot pairing code provided out of band, and elaborates on the workflow around it. This gives the agent complete semantic understanding of the sole parameter.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Pull a synced login from a one-shot pairing ``code`` and inject it.' This clearly identifies the tool's resource (a synced login/pairing code) and the verb (pull/inject), and context about subsequent navigate calls distinguishes it from navigation or browsing tools. It is unambiguous about what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives a concrete usage scenario: 'A laptop runs ``wraith profile sync`` and hands you the pairing code out of band.' It explains when to use the tool (after receiving a pairing code) and its effect on later navigate calls. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but it provides clear situational guidance sufficient for an agent to apply it appropriately.

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