sign_in

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a browser opens on the user's machine, that the user must approve/enter data there, that the call can return 'pending', and how to re-invoke with the same method. It does not cover timeout or what a fully successful response looks like, so it falls just short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and trigger, then the browser flow, then the method precondition, then the retry rule. It is dense but every sentence carries operational value; a small amount of repetition in the pending-retry sentence could be trimmed.

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 interactive auth tool with no output schema, the description covers the whole lifecycle: when to call, how the browser interaction works, what 'pending' means, and how to verify completion. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic guidance: the method must be chosen by the user first, and 'email' specifically only opens an input page rather than accepting credentials via chat. That materially shapes how the 'method' enum should be used.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (sign in to Matryoshka Mind Map) and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by naming the trigger condition: other tools returning 'not signed in'. An agent can select it without inspecting any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('ほかのツールが「サインインしていません」と返したとき'), a required precondition (ask the user which method before calling), and a prohibition (never collect email/password in conversation). It also gives the retry protocol when status is 'pending'.

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