Get Domoticz OAuth login status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning that the tool checks a browser login and that the agent should retry only after status completes, which guides correct invocation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that state the purpose and provide essential guidance. Every word is necessary, with no fluff. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and rich annotations plus output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit instruction to call repeatedly for polling, but this is implied by the retry guidance. Suitable for a simple read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'flow_id' as an opaque identifier from start_oauth_login. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Check a browser login', which clearly indicates the tool's function of verifying OAuth login status. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that manage devices, variables, and events. However, it could be more specific about what 'check' returns (e.g., status or progress).

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 implicit usage guidance: 'Retry the original operation only after status is complete.' This suggests polling behavior but does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. A more explicit usage context would improve clarity.

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