LMS 연결(로그인)

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

The description discloses the tool's side effects: opening a browser, waiting for a specified duration, and on Windows, saving the session using DPAPI. It also notes that it is non-automated and requires user interaction, which is consistent with the annotations. No hidden behavior is left undisclosed.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds value: it explains the action, the login flow, the Windows-specific behavior, and the wait parameter. It is a bit detailed but not redundant or verbose.

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 provides enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly, including cross-references to get_auth_status and warnings about credentials. It could mention behavior on non-Windows platforms, but that is a minor omission and not critical.

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, wait_seconds, is fully described: it is the wait time for LMS screen detection and session saving, with a default of 120. The schema also provides type and bounds, and the description adds meaningful context.

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 action: it opens a browser (no automation) for LMS login at /my/. It also specifies the intended use, which is to connect to the LMS, and distinguishes it from other tools like get_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?

It provides explicit guidance on when and how to use the tool: it explains the manual login flow (ID login tab, passkey), warns against providing credentials, and instructs to call get_auth_status if wait_seconds is 0. This gives clear usage context.

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