othos_auth_connect

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the main behavior (browser auth, polling, token storage) but lacks details on error handling, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tokens), or permission requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and process. No superfluous words.

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 the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (6 params), the description omits important details like what the tool returns, error states, or prerequisites. It provides the high-level flow but is not fully complete.

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% with per-parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'start browser auth and store token', so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: start browser auth, poll, and store a token. It is a specific verb+resource combination, but does not distinguish between sibling auth tools like othos_auth_login or othos_auth_create_personal_token.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., othos_auth_login). The description implies an interactive browser-based flow but does not specify prerequisites, fallbacks, or when not to use it.

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