lr_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: it drives a browser interaction and blocks up to 5 minutes waiting for the user. It does not state what happens on timeout or failure, nor whether tokens persist across sessions, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 it does, when to call it, and the timeout constraint. The action and the trigger condition are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers purpose, trigger condition, and the 5-minute blocking window; only failure/timeout behavior is left unstated, a minor gap for an interactive auth tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for, and it correctly avoids describing nonexistent 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 ('Sign in to Adobe in the browser and store tokens') that is unmistakably distinct from the read/write photo and album siblings (lr_get_photo, lr_list_albums, etc.). An agent can identify this as the authentication tool without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicitly limits invocation: 'Only needed when another tool reports that the user is not signed in or the token refresh failed.' This gives a concrete trigger condition and implicitly rules out proactive calls, which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for an auth tool.

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