login

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the interaction model: the tool returns a URL and a verification code, the agent must relay them verbatim to the user, and login is finished in the browser before other tools are usable. It does not mention code expiry, polling behaviour, or what happens if the user abandons the flow. Annotations (readOnly, openWorld) already frame the safety profile, so this added context is meaningful.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the operational instruction (relay the URL/code, then call other tools) follows in one tight sentence. No padding, and the ordering information is exactly what an agent needs.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does (URL + verification code). It stops short of the practical lifecycle details an agent would want — code validity window, retry/failure behaviour, and whether auth_status should be consulted first.

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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax the description could or should add. Nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 ('用设备码方式登录 Microsoft 账号') and names the mechanism (device code flow), which no sibling tool covers. It implies its position as a prerequisite ('登录完成后再调用其他工具') but never names the auth-related sibling auth_status for differentiation.

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?

Clear context for use: this is the entry step needed before other tools will work, and the agent is told to hand the URL/code to the user for out-of-band completion. It never says whether to check auth_status first to see if login is even required, which is the one obvious exclusion.

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