Login to InfluIQ

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

The description fully explains the tool's behavior: opening a browser, secure credential entry, automatic session linking without token copying. It also states no arguments are required. This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate idempotence. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence followed by logical subsections about the login process and API key alternative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningfully without redundancy.

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 (no parameters, straightforward login action), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, and an alternative method. There is no output schema, but the description implicitly covers expected outcomes. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 no parameters, and the description explicitly states 'No arguments required.' According to the baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds value by confirming the absence of inputs.

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: signing in to InfluIQ by opening a login page in the browser. It distinguishes itself from API key authentication by providing alternative instructions. The verb 'Sign in' and the resource 'InfluIQ' are specific, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like influiq_auth_status.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'alternative to API key authentication' and gives detailed steps for API key setup. However, it does not explicitly compare to the sibling tool influiq_auth_status for checking login state, which would be a helpful exclusion criterion.

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