login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: it opens a browser, uses PKCE, and saves an API key to a specific path. However, it omits the conditional behavior that the browser flow may be skipped unless 'force' is true, which is only revealed in the parameter description. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, method, and outcome with no unnecessary words. It earns its place entirely.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete enough for most use cases. It explains what, how, and where. The main gap is not stating that this is a prerequisite for other tools, but that is reasonably inferred.

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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'force' has a clear description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 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 purpose: 'Authenticate RunAPI' via a specific method (browser PKCE login) and a specific side effect (saving the API key to a config file). This is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 (you need to authenticate before using RunAPI tools), but it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or mention any alternatives. Since the sibling tools are unrelated, there's no direct competition, but the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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