Log in to Gamealia

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing the out-of-band approval flow (URL plus code, Google or email/password), profile auto-creation, background polling, and a concrete side effect with location and permissions (API key written to ~/.config/gamealia/credentials.json, mode 600). It also bounds each wait call at 50 s and explains the repeat-while-pending loop, which an agent needs to avoid misreading a pending response as failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the ordering constraint and mechanism, and every clause carries information (flow, file side effect, timeout, idempotency, override). It is a dense run of parentheticals in one paragraph; breaking the wait/force behavior into a separate sentence would improve scannability without losing content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: URL and code on first call, username when already authenticated, pending state implied by the wait loop. Combined with the disclosed credential file side effect and the 50 s bound, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational meaning the schema does not: wait is a polling loop with a ~50 s ceiling per call that must be repeated, and force discards an in-flight login. That is behavior beyond the terse schema strings, though neither parameter's interaction with the logged-in shortcut is spelled out in full.

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 ("logs in to Gamealia") plus the mechanism (device code), and immediately distinguishes its role from all siblings: "call it first, since every tool that talks to Gamealia needs it." An agent can place this tool relative to gamealia_whoami, gamealia_logout, and the rest without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (before any Gamealia call), explicit follow-up behavior ("call again with wait:true ... repeat while still pending"), explicit override conditions ("unless force:true"), and the already-logged-in case. Alternatives and exclusions are both named rather than inferred.

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