Sign in to Woolworths

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it never performs sign-in, cannot perform sign-in because of Auth0's non-browser challenges, never sends credentials, and never touches the account. The readOnlyHint being false is not contradicted because the description does not claim the operation cannot read or report local session state; it makes a stronger, consistent safety statement.

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 tightly structured: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical limitation and external alternative, then the safety guarantee. Every sentence carries necessary information and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool reports, what the caller should do if signed out, why sign-in cannot happen in-process, and that credentials are never touched. The 'report whether' phrasing sufficiently frames the expected result for an agent.

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 has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to document parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter detail is missing or required.

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 that the tool reports signed-in status and explains how to sign in if needed, while explicitly saying sign-in is not performed here. This is a specific and useful definition, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling auth_status tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: call it to report session status and sign-in instructions. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use condition and a named alternative: actual sign-in happens via `npm run login` in a real browser, not through this tool.

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