aiworkers_login_link

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the link has no secret, the token is one-time, and the action requires the Mini App to show the token once. It also implies a no-destructive outcome (token generation, not modification). This exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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, all essential: it states the purpose, clarifies security, and provides usage instructions. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted 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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the tool's simple nature, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, workflow, and security model. Minor omission: it doesn't specify the return format (though an output schema may cover that), but overall it's highly informative for a tool with no inputs.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so a baseline of 4 is justified. The description adds meaning by explaining the tool's outcome and workflow, compensating for the lack of parameter details.

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: to share a Telegram URL that provides a one-time MCP token for login. It specifies the resource ('Telegram URL') and the action ('Share'), and it has zero parameters, making the scope unambiguous. The tool is distinct from siblings like 'aiworkers_whoami' and 'workers_balance' by its focus on login token delivery.

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 tells when to use this tool: to obtain a login token without an existing key. It also provides step-by-step instructions ('run `aiworkers-mcp login` and paste it') and clarifies that it works 'without an existing key,' guiding the agent away from requiring prior authentication. This effectively communicates the context and excludes alternatives.

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