Подключиться к панели

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the interactive flow: a window opens, a human enters the token, and the token never appears in correspondence. Annotations do not contradict this, and the added context about human involvement and token handling is valuable.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the tool does, followed by essential token-handling and usage guidance. No fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description covers the purpose, triggering context, and a key security/behavioral detail about token privacy. With no output schema, it might have said what the tool returns on success/failure, but the entry flow is well clarified and enough for this auth setup 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and switch_account), with 100% coverage. The tool description doesn't add extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 this tool opens a window for entering a panel URL and access token. It distinguishes itself from siblings (e.g., operbots_logout, bots_reveal_token) by focusing specifically on initial auth setup and re-authentication when access is missing/expired.

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 explicitly says when to invoke the tool: when other tools report that access is not configured or the token is no longer valid. It does not contrast it with all alternatives, but this is sufficient guidance for the primary use case.

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