login

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the key traits: the action is interactive and requires the user to act in a separate browser window, and force=true destroys a saved session before re-authenticating. It does not cover blocking or timeout behavior, or what happens if the user abandons the window.

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 compact sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: what happens, the site requirement and default, and the force side effect. Nothing is repeated and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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?

Two parameters are both accounted for, and an output schema exists to cover return values, so the remaining need is low. Minor gaps are the lack of a pointer to list_sites for accepted site strings and no note on whether the call blocks until the user finishes.

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%, so both parameters must be explained in prose, and they are: site controls which provider's login page opens, with an explicit example value and a stated default, and force controls whether the saved session is cleared. This adds real meaning beyond an untyped string and boolean in the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it opens a separate browser window so the user can complete institutional or personal login. That is far more informative than the name alone. It stops short of a 5 because it never names a sibling tool, such as session_status or list_sites, to contrast itself with.

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 clearly states when an explicit site value is mandatory (Wanfang/CQVIP) and what the default is otherwise (WoS login page), plus when to use force to clear a saved session. It does not say when to call login rather than check session_status first, and it gives no pointer to list_sites for valid site values.

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