Sign in to your Alto account

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool opens a browser, requires user interaction with Google, and can return a 'waiting' status. It doesn't explicitly state what side effects occur (e.g., saving credentials) or success/failure statuses, but the main behavior is transparent. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and condition; the second covers the browser flow and the retry instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to use, how the flow works, and how to handle the 'waiting' status. It doesn't enumerate other possible statuses or error handling, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain; it correctly focuses on the overall operation.

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 connects Alto to the user's own account on this computer, specifically for cloud-stored projects. It also describes the browser-based Google flow, distinguishing it from all sibling tools which are project/timeline operations. The verb 'connect' and resource 'account' are explicit.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: once per computer and only when ALTO_STORE=cloud. It also provides a retry instruction when status is 'waiting', telling the agent exactly what to do in that scenario. This is strong usage guidance even without naming alternatives, since no alternative sign-in exists.

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