Complete Local Device Login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: polling, local caching, and that 'Token values are not returned.' It also notes 'Development only,' providing a usage constraint. However, it omits error/timeout behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action. The addition of Chinese intents is supplementary but still compact. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the localization list could be seen as extra.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow (poll, cache, no token return) and the development-only caveat. It could be more complete by explicitly referencing the preceding auth_start_device_login step, but overall it is adequate.

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 only parameter, timeoutSeconds, is fully described in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Poll the token endpoint after the user enters the device code, then cache the token locally.' This distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like auth_start_device_login and auth_status.

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 provides clear context for when to use: after the user enters the device code, and it restricts usage to 'Development only.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sequencing with the device login flow is implied.

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