login

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

With no annotations, the description provides good transparency: it mentions opening a browser (interactive flow), PKCE method, and saving to a config file. It also hints at the 'force' parameter for re-authentication, but doesn't cover idempotency or existing credential handling.

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 front-loads the core action ('Authenticate RunAPI') and efficiently conveys method and output location without extraneous 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 tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description fully covers the essential context: what it does, how it does it, and where it stores results. No gaps remain.

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 'force' parameter. The tool description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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: authenticating RunAPI via a PKCE login flow and saving the API key to a config file. It distinctly differs from sibling tools (e.g., video-related), making selection unambiguous.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (all non-authentication) makes usage fairly clear, meeting a minimal viable standard.

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