autenticar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool opens a visible Chromium window and saves storageState, which is a side effect. It also explicitly discloses what the tool does NOT do (automate credentials, MFA, CAPTCHA, certificate). This is good transparency, though it omits details like storage location or prerequisites.

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, consisting of exactly two sentences that deliver the essential information: what the tool does and what it does not do. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action followed by limitations. No unnecessary 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core behavior well, but it omits explanation of the 'grau' parameter, which is a significant gap for correct invocation. It also lacks context on how this fits with sibling tools (e.g., that it should precede data access tools), but given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimally adequate yet incomplete.

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 description does not mention the only parameter, 'grau', at all. The schema has an enum of '1' or '2' with a default, but no description of what these values mean. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any semantic meaning, leaving the agent guessing about the parameter's purpose.

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: 'Abre Chromium visível para autenticação manual e salva storageState' (opens visible Chromium for manual authentication and saves storageState). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on authentication, not queries or downloads. The negative statement about not automating credentials/MFA/CAPTCHA/certificate adds further clarity.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when manual authentication is needed, as opposed to automated. It explicitly excludes automating credentials, MFA, CAPTCHA, or certificates, which signals when not to rely on this tool for automated flows. However, it does not name specific alternatives among sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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