Войти в панель

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.), the description adds valuable context: the password is entered by a human, goes directly to the panel, never enters correspondence, and only a refresh token is stored on disk. This discloses security and privacy-relevant behavior that the annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact, two sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and usage guidance/security note in the second. Every phrase earns its place, and it is easily scannable.

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 a login tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the token/security behavior. It doesn't describe the post-login return value or error cases, but these are not required given the tool's interactive nature and the schema coverage.

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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and switch_account), so baseline is 3. The description adds a nuance by clarifying that email and password are entered in the window rather than passed as parameters, which is useful but does not significantly extend the schema semantics.

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: opening a login window for the operbots panel with address, email, and password. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like operbots_logout and whoami by explicitly positioning it as the authentication action to perform when sessions are invalid.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Call when other tools report that login has not been performed or the session is no longer valid.' This is a clear 'when to use' statement. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives (like whoami to check session status), so it's slightly short of a perfect score.

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