OAuth login

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses side effects (opens browser, persists tokens to disk) and prerequisites (OAuth app registration, env var fallback). This is adequate for a 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?

The description is four concise sentences, each contributing essential information: purpose, flow, persistence, and prerequisites. No redundancy or fluff.

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 OAuth flows and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers purpose, flow, persistence, and prerequisites. It lacks details on error handling or redirect URIs, but is sufficient for a login tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaning by explaining that client_id and client_secret can be provided directly or via environment variables. However, it does not specify formats, constraints, or defaults, so value is moderate.

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 identifies the tool as running the OAuth 2.0 Authorization Code flow with PKCE, specifying the action (run, opens, persists) and resource (Kanka authorize page, tokens). It distinguishes from siblings like kanka_auth_logout and kanka_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 explains when to use this tool (to authenticate for subsequent calls) and prerequisite requirements (registered OAuth app, env vars). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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