login

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it opens a browser (interactive), performs a PKCE flow, and writes to a config file. This goes beyond what annotations (none) provide. However, it does not mention potential issues like browser dependency or timeouts, so it is not a perfect score.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without any unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded with the action.

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, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or API key). It focuses on the side effect (saving to config) but omits the immediate output. For a login tool, this is a notable gap, though the description is otherwise comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters, with the 'force' parameter already described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides; it is separate. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: authenticating RunAPI via a browser PKCE login flow and saving the API key to a config file. It uses specific verbs ('Authenticate', 'opening', 'saving') and identifies the resource ('RunAPI') and the output location. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which deal with pricing, image editing, etc.

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 does not explicitly state when to use the tool or when to avoid it. It implies it is for initial authentication, but lacks guidance on scenarios such as already having a valid key or needing to re-authenticate. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites is provided.

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