gv_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it spawns a local Chrome process with remote debugging, the human must connect via SSH tunnel and chrome://inspect, and 2FA is completed manually. It omits details an agent may need, such as which port is opened, whether the call blocks until login finishes, and the security implications of enabling remote debugging.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what is launched, how the user completes login, and the mandated follow-up call. The action is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics and the handoff to gv_check_login. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating what the call returns or how the agent should wait for the human step to finish before verifying.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 names a specific action and resource: launching system Chrome with remote debugging specifically for Google login. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling gv_check_login by assigning that tool the verification role, so an agent can place this tool in the flow without ambiguity.

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?

It states the use case (Google login, including 2FA) and the explicit next step: call gv_check_login afterward. It does not state when this tool should NOT be used or what to do if Chrome is already running with a debugging port, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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