login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it opens a browser (implying user interaction), supports third-party logins, and automatically saves credentials upon success. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., browser pop-ups, session creation), error handling, or prerequisites. For a login tool with zero annotation coverage, this provides basic context but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like security or failure modes.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two concise sentences that directly state the action and outcome. The first sentence explains the core functionality, and the second adds critical behavioral context (credential saving). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (authentication with browser interaction), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and credential persistence, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a login tool, more context on session management or failure handling would improve completeness, but it meets minimum viability.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no schema burden to compensate for, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary complexity.

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: '打开浏览器进行 PingCode 登录（支持飞书等第三方登录）' (Open browser for PingCode login, supports third-party logins like Feishu). It specifies the verb ('打开浏览器进行登录' - open browser for login) and resource (PingCode), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check_auth' or 'logout'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'logout' is clearly opposite, but 'check_auth' might overlap in authentication context).

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 implies usage context: '登录成功后凭证会自动保存' (Credentials are automatically saved after successful login), suggesting this tool should be used for initial authentication setup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'check_auth' (which might verify existing credentials) or 'logout' (which ends sessions). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, lacking clear when/when-not instructions.

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