revibe_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: opens a browser window, requires user interaction ('logging in and clicking Authorize'), and saves the API key locally. It could mention whether existing keys are overwritten, but this is adequate for a simple login tool.

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?

Three sentences deliver all essential information without redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third clarifies the effect on other tools. Highly efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the user's needs: how it works, what the user must do, and the result. It also connects to the broader toolset by explaining the automatic API key persistence.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description explains the interactive nature and local persistence, which is sufficient since there are no parameters to document.

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: 'Log in to Revibe via browser.' It directly names the resource (Revibe) and the action (login), distinguishing it from the sibling tools, which are related to repo analysis and status checks.

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 clearly indicates this is a prerequisite for other Revibe tools ('so all other Revibe tools work automatically'), providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list makes it obvious that this is the authentication entry point.

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