login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the window is 'headed', that sign-in is manual, and that wait_seconds bounds the waiting time. It does not say what happens after sign-in or whether a session is persisted, but the core interactive behavior is transparent.

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 contain the necessary information: the action, the triggering context, the parameter semantics, and the default. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by an Args section.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the interactive login flow and timeout. It does not describe return values or post-login verification, but the sibling check_session can cover that need.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining wait_seconds as 'Max seconds to wait for manual sign-in' and stating a default of 600. However, the schema declares default null, creating a slight inconsistency about the actual default behavior.

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 and resource: 'Open a headed LinkedIn sign-in window', and contextualizes it with 'first-time use or re-login'. This clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_session.

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 states when to use the tool ('first-time use or re-login'), giving clear context. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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