auth_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that a visible browser window opens, the tool blocks until the user finishes or times out after 5 minutes, and that the session is reused by other tools until expiration.

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 and well-structured: it starts with the core action, then specifies the only valid invocation condition, then explains behavioral outcomes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 an interactive login tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: when to call it, what the user sees, blocking/timeout behavior, and session reuse. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 action ('Open a real browser window'), the target resource ('Amrita student portal via Microsoft SSO'), and the purpose (user login). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools auth_status and auth_logout.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Only call this after the user has explicitly asked to log in or re-authenticate') and describes the blocking behavior and timeout. However, it does not mention the alternative sibling tools or when to prefer auth_status or auth_logout.

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