aula_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the tool's side effects: it may open a Chrome window, displays a MitID QR code, and returns a screenshot. This goes beyond a simple 'login' label by describing the interactive flow and the expected output, which is critical for an agent to know about the browser-launching behavior.

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 two sentences, with the primary verb and resource front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral detail, and there is no irrelevant or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the conditional behavior (existing session vs. new authentication), and the output (screenshot). However, it does not mention what happens after the screenshot is scanned or how to confirm completion, leaving some uncertainty about the full workflow.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. The description correctly avoids describing any parameters. Per the baseline rule for zero params, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is nothing more needed.

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's primary action: 'Start Aula authentication.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like aula_session_status and aula_check_auth by describing the actual login initiation process (opening Chrome with a QR code) rather than just checking status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when authentication is needed or when you want to ensure a valid session. It also explains that it confirms existing sessions, which implies it can be used as a first step. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer a status-only check, so some guidance is missing.

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