login_legacy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool is cookie-based and opens a browser for manual login, which informs the agent about the interactive nature. However, it lacks details on what happens after login, whether it revokes existing sessions, or how authentication state is managed, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 compact, consisting of three focused sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, provides necessary usage context, and does not waste words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of sibling tools, the description adequately covers the core purpose, usage, and alternative. It also explains the dependency on analyze_liquid_file. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or how success is indicated, which could be a minor gap for an agent expecting a completion signal.

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 100% for the single parameter storeUrl, with the schema providing the format example. The description does not add any extra detail about the parameter itself, so it adds no value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 it is a 'Legacy cookie-based Shopify login' that opens a browser for manual login. It distinguishes itself from the 'login' (OAuth2) tool by mentioning the legacy nature and cookie-based approach, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated among sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool: 'Required for analyze_liquid_file tool which needs Admin API access.' It also provides an alternative: 'Use login (OAuth2) for profiling tools.' This gives clear guidance on context and exclusion, adhering to the best standard.

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