epost_login

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

The description discloses key behaviors: visible browser, credential filling, passkey request, manual fallback, session caching. Without annotations, it provides sufficient transparency. It does not mention potential side effects like leaving the browser open, but the wait_seconds parameter mitigates this.

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 mostly concise, packing all essential information into two sentences. The first sentence is slightly long but front-loads the main action. No extraneous information.

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 complexity of a login automation tool with multiple steps (browser, credentials, fallback, caching), the description covers all aspects sufficiently. No output schema is needed, and the parameter is well-documented.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already explains wait_seconds. The tool description adds value by explaining the reason for the minimum (SwissID redirect chain), which aids agent understanding.

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 automates SwissID login by opening a visible browser, filling email, requesting passkey, and handling fallback. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are post-login operations) and uses specific verbs like 'open' and 'drive'.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (automating login except biometric prompt) and mentions fallback behavior. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use (e.g., if manual login is preferred), but the context among siblings makes the usage clear.

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