rappi_auth

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it explains Chrome attachment, login wait, token exchange, .env writing, and truncated return values. No behavioral traits are hidden.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list for the flow. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one boolean param, no output schema), the description covers the complete workflow, return values, and side effects (e.g., writing to .env). It is fully contextualized among sibling tools.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the tool description extensively explains the single boolean parameter 'use_existing_chrome', detailing the exact behavior for each value, far exceeding what the schema provides.

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: 'Extract Rappi credentials from Chrome and save them to .env.' It uses a specific verb (extract) and resource (credentials), and it distinguishes well from sibling tools, which are all about shopping actions.

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 provides detailed guidance on the two modes of operation (use_existing_chrome True/False), giving clear context on when each is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools or mention prerequisites, though the name implies it's the first step.

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