login

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a side effect (storing an API key locally) and the action of opening a browser for sign-in. However, it does not mention potential outcomes (e.g., success/failure states, if it requires user interaction, or if it modifies any existing credentials). The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Open Google sign-in') and follows with the storage side effect. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 a tool with no parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and its key side effect. It could mention when to use it or what the return value signifies, but the output schema covers return details, and the purpose is self-evident for a login tool. Minor omission: no indication of authentication flow prerequisites (e.g., needing a browser).

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 description need not explain any parameter details beyond the schema (which already has 100% coverage for an empty object). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no param-specific information because there is none to add.

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 action: opening Google sign-in and storing a KashRock API key locally. It specifies a concrete verb ('Open', 'store') and resource ('Google sign-in', 'KashRock API key'), and it is unmistakably distinct from the sibling tools, which are all data retrieval operations.

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 implies that this tool is for authentication, since it mentions login and storing an API key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it in relation to other tools (e.g., before calling get_* tools, or how it differs from whoami). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so the usage context is only implied.

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