vibo_capture_session

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing prerequisites (extension installed, signed into the web app), a first-use pair-code approval step, and the side effect that the token is stored locally and reused. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for an auth-bootstrap call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the prerequisites. The semicolon clause packs several conditions together, but every clause carries actionable information.

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 no-param, no-output-schema auth-capture tool, the description covers the mechanism, prerequisites, first-use approval, and persistence of the token. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it successfully is 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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (capture your Vibo login) and the exact mechanism (ContextMint Bridge browser tab). The purpose is unmistakable, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling API tools, so a strict rubric 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('for accounts that sign in with Apple/Google/Facebook (no password)'), implicitly scoping the tool away from password logins. No alternative tool is named, but none of the siblings perform session capture, so the gap is minor.

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