yaaif_login_device

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

No annotations, so description carries the burden; it discloses default non-blocking behavior, background polling, immediate status=pending, and wait=true blocking. It doesn't mention failure/expiry or side effects like session persistence, but core runtime behavior is well 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the key behavior, then default flow, then wait option, then prerequisite. 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 a login tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the important return values, default vs blocking behavior, and environment requirement. It omits timeout_ms semantics and what happens after authorization, but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and timeout_ms is never mentioned; only wait is explained ('Pass wait=true to block until complete'). The description must compensate for the empty schema and does so for only one of two parameters.

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?

Clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: headless/CI device-code login via Keycloak device grant + PKCE S256. It distinguishes itself from the interactive yaaif_login sibling by naming the flow and the immediate return of verification_uri/user_code.

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?

Description gives explicit context (headless/CI) and default-vs-wait behavior, plus a config prerequisite. It doesn't name yaaif_login as the interactive alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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