Open LinkedIn login in your Chrome

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it launches or connects to the user's own Chrome, opens LinkedIn, does not type anything on the user's behalf, waits up to timeoutSeconds for login to complete, and returns the status. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by explaining the interactive nature and the wait behavior. It doesn't detail what the returned status looks like, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-structured. It front-loads the core action (launch Chrome, open LinkedIn, manual sign-in), then explains the wait behavior, and finally provides usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

The description is complete for an interactive login tool. It explains the purpose, the manual nature, the timeout behavior, and when to use it. It doesn't describe the exact return status format, but since there is no output schema, a bit more detail on the returned status could be helpful. However, the description covers the essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the timeoutSeconds parameter. The description mentions 'waits up to timeoutSeconds' which reinforces the parameter's meaning but doesn't add significant new detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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: it launches or connects to the user's own Chrome with a dedicated profile and opens LinkedIn for manual sign-in. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that nothing is typed on the user's behalf and that the user signs in manually in a visible window.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: before the first sync and whenever browser_status shows loggedIn=false or a checkpoint. It also names the next step after solving a checkpoint: call queue_resume. This provides clear usage context and alternatives.

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