begin_login

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: fresh uses a clean browser without saved cookies, and a failed fresh login preserves the saved session. This adds state-management nuance 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, required follow-up, and parameter-specific behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 overall login flow, the follow-up polling step, and the edge-case fresh behavior. It does not state what begin_login itself returns, but the instruction to poll get_login_status makes the protocol clear enough for an agent to act.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the sole parameter: fresh:true is for recovering from expired or unsupported flows. It also implies the default normal behavior through 'Open normal TU Delft sign-in'. Could be slightly clearer about default false, but it is largely sufficient.

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 specific action ('Open normal TU Delft sign-in starting from Brightspace') and clearly identifies the resource and portal. It also distinguishes this from sibling login flows like begin_mytu_login and begin_mail_login by emphasizing 'normal TU Delft sign-in' and 'Brightspace'.

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 workflow is explicit: complete password/MFA, then poll get_login_status. It also gives a concrete when-to-use condition for fresh:true ('expired or unsupported sign-in flow'). It does not explicitly state when to use sibling login tools, but the 'normal TU Delft sign-in' framing provides clear enough context.

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