Connect Lazada

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns promptly, names the actual browser, and has a specific environment requirement. It also clarifies the assistant should not solicit cookies or credentials. This is valuable but does not fully describe side effects or state changes, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the most decision-relevant behavioral and environmental details, each earning its place.

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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it behaves, where it can run, and what the agent should not do. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 there is no parameter information for the description to add. The schema already fully covers the input surface, and the description is not required to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a clear action: 'Start or reuse human sign-in,' naming both the verb and the resource (sign-in). It also gives concrete behavioral outcomes (returns promptly, names the actual browser), which helps distinguish it from a generic login. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool 'login', so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 provides clear operational context: it is for starting or reusing a human sign-in, and it specifies a remote VM prerequisite ('requires the configured host browser'). It also gives an important exclusion: 'never ask for cookies or credentials in chat.' It stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it is not a full 5.

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