tidal_login

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

The description discloses that it opens a browser window and returns an authentication status message. However, with no annotations, it omits details on token/session management, potential failures, and side effects beyond the browser interaction.

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 extremely concise with three short lines covering purpose, behavior, and return value. No unnecessary words.

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 is simple (no parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the main flow and return. It could be more complete by linking to other tools or explaining session persistence, but it is adequate.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, and the description confirms the browser login flow, which adds no additional parameter meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Authenticate' and the resource 'TIDAL account', and specifies the method as 'browser login flow'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings as the only authentication tool.

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 implies this tool is a prerequisite for other tools but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'check_auth'. No guidance on when not to use or context for repeated login.

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