login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the browser-based flow and file saving, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config), required user interaction, or any retry/rate limit behavior.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the key information without extraneous words. Every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and mechanism.

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?

For a simple authentication tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the need for user interaction (browser popup) but otherwise covers the essential details.

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% for the single parameter 'force', which is well-described in the schema. The tool description adds no further clarification about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the action ('Authenticate RunAPI'), the method ('browser PKCE login flow'), and the outcome ('saving the API key to ~/.config/runapi/config.json'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are unrelated video/pricing operations.

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 login is for authentication but does not explicitly state when to use it (e.g., at session start) or when not to use it. The 'force' parameter hints at re-authentication scenarios, but no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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