auth

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

The description discloses detailed behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it opens a browser window, returns immediately with `pending: true`, runs a background task that won't close on its own, and never echoes the token. This adds significant context about side effects and workflow that the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) only hint at abstractly.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by bulleted action explanations and parameter notes. Every sentence contributes necessary operational detail, and the formatting (bold, code, parentheses) aids readability without being wasteful.

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 complexity (multi-action, side effects, pending state) and the presence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full lifecycle, error scenarios (expired session), and user-interaction flow, making it fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: `action` (status vs login, with default), `source` (only trackman needs auth), and `open_browser` (controls whether a sign-in window opens). This provides semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, covering all three parameters effectively.

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: 'Check or (re)establish your Trackman sign-in.' It goes beyond a simple verb by detailing the two actions (`status` and `login`) and their distinct functions, making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools which are all data/analysis oriented.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this first' for `status`, instructs to call `status` after login to confirm, and warns against re-calling `login` while pending. It also notes that only `trackman` needs auth, implying when the tool is not needed. This is comprehensive and highly actionable.

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