complete_starbucks_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key trait: it requires a prior manual login in the browser. However, it does not describe side effects like session creation, token handling, or failure behavior, leaving the agent with limited understanding of the tool's internal actions.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. The key information (action, resource, precondition) is front-loaded, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: what it does and when to use it. The precondition 'after user has logged in manually in the browser' is critical. However, it does not cover edge cases like calling without the prerequisite, but given its simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4, and the description meets this baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'complete' with the resource 'Starbucks login' and specifies the precondition 'after user has logged in manually in the browser.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like login_starbucks and check_starbucks_auth, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the condition for use: after the user has manually logged in via the browser. This implies a follow-up step and provides a clear prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the usage scenario evident.

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