yaaif_login

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that the tool opens an interactive browser flow and persists tokens as a side effect. It does not mention whether it blocks on user completion or what it returns, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and both the flow type and the persistence side effect are packed in efficiently without redundancy.

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 login tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the authority source and the persistence outcome. It could add that the browser flow requires interactive user completion, but the phrase 'Open browser' reasonably implies this. Minor gap, not a blocking one.

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, so the description need not explain any. It usefully adds that the login targets the 'active platform' authority, implying a state dependency that the empty schema cannot convey. Baseline 4 for a no-param tool 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 states a specific verb ('Open'), a resource ('active platform OIDC authority'), and the flow ('PKCE login'), plus the outcome ('persist tokens'). This is clear and distinguishes it from login_device via the 'browser PKCE' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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?

No guidance on when to use this login method versus yaaif_login_device or yaaif_ensure_session. The description does not state prerequisites (e.g., a platform must be active) or when browser PKCE is preferred over device flow, leaving the agent to infer.

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