navvi_login

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: navigates to page, fills credentials, submits, verifies, and handles 2FA with VNC. It is transparent about the autofill and submission steps, though it could mention potential state changes (e.g., page navigation).

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 concise with two core sentences, an example, and prerequisites. No redundant information, and the key action is 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and low parameter count, the description covers input, behavior, prerequisites, and 2FA handling. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'service' as a service name with examples like 'tuta.com', and notes 'persona' defaults to 'default'. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 logs into a service using stored credentials, explaining the automated process of navigating, filling, submitting, and verifying login. It distinguishes from sibling navvi_creds by emphasizing the complete login flow rather than just autofill.

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 provides usage context (instead of manual navigation and navvi_creds), a concrete example, and prerequisites (account with creds_ref). It mentions 2FA handling via VNC, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools for different scenarios.

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