neurover_browser_login

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

The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: a visible browser window opens, a human must complete the login, and the session is persisted on the second call. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. calling finish=true without step 1, or what happens if the window is closed without finishing).

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact enumeration of the two steps; every sentence carries operational information and there is no filler.

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 an open-world, human-in-the-loop fallback tool with an output schema absent, the description covers the happy path well but leaves the account parameter unexplained and says nothing about timeouts, interruption, or what is returned after the session is saved.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It fully explains the meaning of finish through the two-step protocol (false opens the window, true saves the session and closes it), but the account parameter is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource (fallback login via a visible browser window) and immediately scopes it to the case where the normal login hits a CAPTCHA, which distinguishes it from the sibling neurover_login. An agent can tell which tool handles which situation without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition (use only when the ordinary login asks for CAPTCHA) and a precise two-step invocation sequence, including when to pass finish=true. The only gap is that it references the alternative as 'обычный вход' rather than naming neurover_login outright.

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