uber_eats_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job explaining the safe-skip behavior and the destructive aspect of force=true (clears saved session). However, it doesn't disclose details like how the session file is validated, what happens on login timeout/cancel, or whether credentials are stored server-side beyond the cookie file. The force-clears-session behavioral note is valuable.

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?

Concise at roughly 60 words with zero filler. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the default conditional behavior, then parameter explanation. Every sentence carries meaning.

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 login tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: default skip, force override, session persistence location, and when force is warranted. Given there's an output schema (though unknown content) and the tool is interaction-heavy (user drives the login), the description is appropriately complete. Minor gap: no mention of UI instructions for the user during login.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does: force's purpose (always run full login flow), its effect (clears saved session), and when to use it (switch accounts, bad cookie). The description adds real semantic value beyond the bare boolean schema field.

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 states a specific action (open a browser window) and resource (Uber Eats sign-in), with a clear conditional behavior: returns success without opening a window if a saved session works. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools (whoami, switch_address) by being the authentication entry point.

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 clearly explains when the tool opens a window (no valid session, or force=true) versus when it short-circuits (valid saved session). It also gives explicit when-to-force guidance ('switch accounts or recover from a bad cookie file'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the use case is clear enough given the sibling set.

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