login_google

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: opens browser for Google consent, waits for user approval, stores session token. It also notes the stdio-only requirement. However, it omits potential error handling or timeout behavior, preventing a perfect score.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, browser flow, what it does not do and next steps, and system requirement. No redundancy or 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?

Given the complexity of an OAuth login tool with no output schema, the description covers authentication flow, prerequisites (browser, stdio), and required post-login actions. It could additionally mention the return value or error scenarios, but is largely sufficient.

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 the description fills in by explaining the whole process. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by detailing the browser interaction and follow-up steps.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Sign in to the Anythink platform with Google.' It identifies specific verb and resource, distinguishing from siblings like 'login' and 'login_direct' by specifying the Google OAuth method and clarifying that it does not handle account or project selection.

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 explicitly guides when to use the tool: after login, call accounts_list/accounts_use and projects_list/projects_use. It also warns against use on hosted HTTP server due to browser requirement, effectively telling when not to use it and providing follow-up steps.

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