Log In

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations: it opens a browser window, supports Google/Facebook/email, automatically picks up the account, and stores the access token and email locally at ~/.glassypic/session.json with file mode 0600 until logout. This is far more transparent than the minimal annotations (openWorldHint=true) and covers side effects, storage, and security posture.

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 four sentences, each contributing essential information: the action, the browser flow, the credit benefit and related status tool, and the local session storage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. 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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the login flow, credit implications, related tool usage, and security details about the stored session. It also clarifies that login is a prerequisite for shared credits, making the tool's role in the system fully comprehensible.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level semantics because there are none, but it does explain the authentication flow and what happens after login. This is sufficient given the empty schema.

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: 'Log in to your GlassyPic account via browser to unlock more credits.' The verb 'log in' is specific and the resource (GlassyPic account) is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like logout, status, and upgrade by focusing solely on authentication.

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 on when to use login (to unlock credits) and references the status tool for reading account tier and credits, offering an alternative for account info. It does not explicitly state when not to use login, but the use case is well implied. The mention of logout as the counterpart also helps.

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