Log in to buildtree

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behaviors: a URL is returned, the tool attempts to open it automatically, user approval is required, and critically it never returns a token. It stops short of covering permission requirements, timeouts, or what happens on rejection.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler; the core output (a URL for the user to approve) and the follow-up call are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (a URL, never a token) and the required next step. What an agent needs to invoke and chain this tool is present; only edge-case behavior is absent.

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 single apiUrl parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or default-behavior detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a browser login') and immediately clarifies the multi-step nature of the operation. It also names the sibling buildtree_login_status as the required follow-up, distinguishing it from the other login-related 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Then call buildtree_login_status with the pairId' tells exactly what to do after this tool and with what value. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the two-step flow is unambiguous.

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