Login to Microsoft

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing significant behavioral traits: it opens a browser for interactive sign-in, instructs the agent not to ask for permission first, and explains that a successful login enables all other tools. This adds valuable context beyond the structured annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, usage directive, and behavioral consequence. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 an authentication tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, what happens during execution, and the resulting effect on other tools. It is complete and appropriately scoped.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Sign in to Microsoft Graph.' It also specifies the mechanism (opens a browser for interactive sign-in) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like logout and auth_status.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this tool directly whenever authentication is needed - do not ask the user for permission first.' It also implies that after login other tools work automatically. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling short of a 5.

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