blackboard_login

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: a local browser window is opened (so user interaction is required) and the password is neither received nor stored. That security disclosure is valuable beyond the structured fields, though nothing is said about session duration or failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action (opening the local window) front-loaded and the security caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless authentication tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential agent-relevant facts: it is interactive (opens a window), it targets Aula Virtual UP, and it does not handle passwords. Only the authenticated/unauthenticated precondition and relationship to blackboard_logout are missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain, and the description correctly notes that no credentials are passed in.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Abre una ventana local para iniciar sesión en Aula Virtual UP' clearly states it opens a local window to authenticate against the Aula Virtual UP platform. It is distinguishable from the sibling blackboard_logout by the login/logout polarity, though it never names that counterpart explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it has no valid session. However, the description never states the precondition (unauthenticated state) or points to blackboard_logout as the inverse operation, so the routing guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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