gdc_login

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a browser window opens, token is shared per user, and workspace/project is repo-specific. This goes beyond a vague 'login' and provides useful behavioral context, though it could mention what happens after authorization (e.g., return to MCP).

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 two tight paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized with a line break for the step-by-step instruction. Every sentence contributes meaning: what it does, how to interact, and the persistence semantics.

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 an authentication tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: the browser handoff, user-level token sharing, per-repo persistence, and the recommended usage pattern. Minor ambiguity around 'A안' (Option A) is slightly unclear but does not undermine completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description correctly focuses on the interaction flow rather than param details.

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 function: issuing an MCP-only token via browser handoff and saving the selected workspace/project per repository. It distinguishes itself from other sibling tools by focusing on authentication and repo-specific context, rather than task management.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: '레포마다 한 번씩 gdc_login하면' (run gdc_login once per repo) and explains the login flow (Google/local, press 'Allow'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like set_context, but the repo-scoped behavior clearly implies when to use this over a generic context setter.

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