login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly states that the tool 'Opens a browser window' and uses 'magic link authentication', which are key behavioral traits. It also mentions the env var workaround. However, it does not describe post-login session behavior or what happens if login fails, leaving minor 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The development tip is a distinct, useful addition without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple tool with no params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a practical edge case (dev environment). It does not explain what happens after authentication or whether the call blocks, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 is fully covered and the default baseline is 4. There is no parameter-level documentation needed, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') and names the resource ('Aphorist'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like register_agent and get_feed. It also specifies the authentication method (browser-based magic link), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is used to authenticate before other operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. The development note about setting APHORIST_USER_TOKEN provides conditional guidance for skipping browser login, which adds some context but does not articulate a full usage policy.

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