Start Domoticz OAuth login

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

The annotations already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds tangible behavioral context: the login is 'bounded', occurs in a 'local browser', and a follow-up polling step is required. It does not explain what 'bounded' means in detail, but combined with the annotation profile it gives a reasonable operation model.

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?

One compact sentence carries the entire description: the action ('start or reuse'), the scope ('bounded'), the environment ('local browser'), and the next step ('poll get_oauth_login_status'). There is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the environment, and the next step. Its only gap is leaving 'bounded' undefined, but the tool's role and flow are sufficiently clear to invoke it correctly.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter responsibilities, and the empty schema confirms no arguments are needed.

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 explicitly identifies the action as 'start or reuse a bounded login in a local browser' and directly names the corresponding polling step ('then poll get_oauth_login_status'). This distinguishes the tool from every other sibling, making its role in the OAuth flow immediately clear.

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 implies when to use the tool: as the first step in an OAuth login, followed by get_oauth_login_status. It provides clear contextual sequencing but does not explicitly list alternatives or describe when not to use it. For a tool with no competing auth-related siblings, the implicit usage guidance is sufficient.

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