login

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it opens a Chrome window, requires the user to complete Duo on their phone, waits up to ~100s, and has a defined fallback when pending. This goes well beyond readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the trigger condition, user dependency, timeout, and next-step guidance.

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 zero-parameter interactive login tool, the description covers the full workflow: when to call it, what happens, what the user must do, how long it waits, and what to do on timeout. The reference to auth_status closes the loop with an existing sibling 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is fully covered, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: open a Chrome window for NYU NetID + Duo login. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling auth_status, which is a status-checking tool.

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?

Explicitly says to use it when other tools report the session is not logged in. It also gives follow-up instructions to tell the user and call auth_status if login is still pending, so the agent knows exactly when and how to proceed.

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